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

Iraq Protests 2019-2020

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
Just now, Soldiers and Saffron said:

More Muslims would die than be saved if such a thing was done.

We will lose and it will make us to live in shame and that in Islam is not acceptable. So I don't understand how it is wajib still. We have narration that say that if we have power to overcome them, then it would be wajib to fight and claim the land to Muslims. It was not even haram but rather wajib for Muslims to reclaim Jerusalem in time of Umar. The Imams (عليه السلام) supported such an actions.

Quote

As you already know Iran is the only country who are in offical conflcit with Israel and it is working on multiple ways to ensure the defeat of the zionist regime as we speak.

Unfortunate the enemies loves always to drag everyone in the conflict, so mostly many Muslims will be suffer for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This whole peotests in Iraq, Lebanon and Iran is only escalated due to enemies of Islam finding opportunities to pour gas on the fire. This isn't about Iran or Iraq's sovereignty or gas prices. They,

What's the worst that can happen in the wordly sense? One can die.What's better for Akhira than dying on the ziyarat of Imam al-Husayn (عليه السلام)? Don't give up the chance. Who knows if we might ev

I think best for Iraq would be to split the country in three new countries. One predominantly Sunni Arab, the other predominantly Shia Arab and the last one predominantly kurd.

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Look, how can I regret when one country politically interference to another country and for excuses of this is because we are brothers in the faith? If Iraqis themselves can unite themselves without interference of any neighbors, then surely there will be an huge change in the land.

You do know there are Iraqis who are also interested in the same thing as Iran is as well right? I know many of them personally.

And since we are on the topic, what would you say Irans interests are? Evidently they are not ecnomical as they could have easily split Kirkuk with the Kurds and taken 50% oil incomes instead of making them hand it over back to the Iraqi government without people getting killed. The man who made that possible is the same man you now dislike.

 

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

We will lose and it will make us to live in shame and that in Islam is not acceptable. So I don't understand how it is wajib still. We have narration that say that if we have power to overcome them, then it would be wajib to fight and claim the land to Muslims. It was not even haram but rather wajib for Muslims to reclaim Jerusalem in time of Umar. The Imams (عليه السلام) supported such an actions.

Then perhaps we should take steps that would allow us to gain power instead of accepting oppression?

And would you say that this situation is the same as the situation of the kafirs invading Iraq?

 

6 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Unfortunate the enemies loves always to drag everyone in the conflict, so mostly many Muslims will be suffer for this.

Who are you referring to here as the enemies? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

You do know there are Iraqis who are also interested in the same thing as Iran is as well right? I know many of them personally.

They are not majority anymore. People are fed of the government corruption. You can even see that only 40% voted and it will surely reduce more when the contry can't even trust their own government anymore. 

Quote

And since we are on the topic, what would you say Irans interests are? Evidently they are not ecnomical as they could have easily split Kirkuk with the Kurds and taken 50% oil incomes instead of making them hand it over back to the Iraqi government without people getting killed. The man who made that possible is the same man you now dislike.

You do know that Iran have a lot deals with Iraq, thanks to the Shias block that make sure it will happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Abu Nur said:

They are not majority anymore. People are fed of the government corruption. You can even see that only 40% voted and it will surely reduce more when the contry can't even trust their own government anymore. 

I don’t think they were ever a majority to begin with. Most people don’t care about religious matters at all to begin with and that number is rapidly growing, religion overall is on the downturn globally, a new global culture is developing among the youth and religion and anything else that is not superfical has no part of it.

 

4 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

You do know that Iran have a lot deals with Iraq, thanks to the Shias block that make sure it will happen.

What deals are you referring to? General trade?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 minute ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Then perhaps we should take steps that would allow us to gain power instead of accepting oppression?

How we will do that, so we will not make our own people suffer in the process. 

Quote

And would you say that this situation is the same as the situation of the kafirs invading Iraq?

If we have power to overcome them, then yes, but we don't have such a power for the US. 

Quote

Who are you referring to here as the enemies? 

All those who have caused suffering to Muslims. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

I don’t think they were ever a majority to begin with. Most people don’t care about religious matters at all to begin with and that number is rapidly growing, religion overall is on the downturn globally, a new global culture is developing among the youth and religion and anything else that is not superfical has no part of it.

You are right. If Iraq do change and becomes secular, then there are two things it could happen, either they will live peacefully and live in prosper while they also following the religion and respect the scholars, or it becomes most of what current majority Muslims countries are, take an example of Malaysia. I don't believe they will follow the first option, because most of the people in Iraq are young generation and they have been shown mark of dislike of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
53 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

The difference between peaceful protests and violent riots is that one includes vandalizing and the breaking of the law while the other one does not. Although some of the people are protesting peacefully some are also violently rioting and causing destruction. The later is what causes the instability and companies to withdraw.

Thank you for the definitions. I accept that your attempt at deflecting is a sign that you understood the point.

 

Quote

There are honorable people from Iraq and there are not so honorable people from Iraq,

Instead of trying to justify the ugly by making it worse for yourself, you could have admitted a mistake and moved on. 

 

Quote

In fact many of my Iraqi friends, including my wife, laugh quite a lot when I tell them what another Iraqi said online.

I believe you 'misunderstood' me to be a 'coconut something' here? and then edited it out after realising I wasn't as well?

 

Quote

 

Merry christmas by the way.

:) 

 

Quote

As far as the post goes, I noticed I might have misunderstood the brother, thus the edit.

 

25 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

 I realized that I might have missunderstood what you said, so I edited it before the other brother posted his moral lecture.

Inshallah It's of benefit.

 

25 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

But I can say this much, I hope we all live long enough to regret whatever wrong we say.

 

Or long enough to edit it out before anyone realises lol 

 

Please inform your Iraqi friends that the coconut Iraqi online says: 

 

1 hour ago, Moalfas said:

No killing is acceptable. Whether it be Shia or not.

One thing this US attack has proved is the hypocrisy in the ones crying Shia blood when Shia blood has been continually spilled the past 3 months but only now is it an issue?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Abu Nur said:

How we will do that, so we will not make our own people suffer in the process. 

Your asking how we can acheive something without having to sacrafice anything for it?

Its like asking how can you be a good Muslim without having to endure not giving into your nafs.

 

2 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

If we have power to overcome them, then yes, but we don't have such a power for the US. 

Do you truly believe that? 

 

3 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

All those who have caused suffering to Muslims. 

And what is the difference between suffering and sacraficing? One is with a goal in mind and the other is not.

Otherwise you could say that Imam Hussein(عليه السلام) caused suffering on Muslims when they got killed by yazid(la) or that Imam Ali(عليه السلام) caused suffering on Muslims when he fought against muawiya(la).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

Otherwise you could say that Imam Hussein(عليه السلام) caused suffering on Muslims when they got killed by yazid(la) or that Imam Ali(عليه السلام) caused suffering on Muslims when he fought against muawiya(la).

I don't understand your meaning here. You asked who is our enemies, well those who are also God enemies or people who kill their own brothers in faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Moalfas said:

I believe you 'misunderstood' me to be a 'coconut something' here? and then edited it out after realising I wasn't as well?

No, I edited it out because I thought it was unnessecarly insulting.

There is a clear difference between riots and protests, and I don’t like it that Shias have been killed be it protestors, rioters or hash al shaabi members, I don’t understand why you would think differently.

Try and reply with one block if you can, its a hassle replying to mini replies, your point is that Shias killed is never good, has anyone said anything else at any point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

I do. I believe we are living in final times and the best thing for us is to not meddle in politics and wars. Because the enemies will escalate and cause more mess.

Even when the enemies are invading our lands, we shoudlnt get involved? When should we get involved then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

I don't understand your meaning here. You asked who is our enemies, well those who are also God enemies or people who kill their own brothers in faith.

You defined our enemies as those who cause Muslims suffering, did you not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Even when the enemies are invading our lands, we shoudlnt get involved? When should we get involved then?

Like I said, if we have power to overcome them then we should get involved. But many times we don't have power and we are made to live with oppressors rulers. This is what we Shi'as have been living in thousands years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

You defined our enemies as those who cause Muslims suffering, did you not?

Qur'an is very clear in this matter brother. If you are specific in the matter of this, then those who cause fitnah and corruption and those who are enemy of God.

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

After condemning the American strike and calling those killed an Iraqi force, Sayyed Sistani said this:

The “illegal practices carried out by some sides” must not be used as a reason to violate Iraq’s sovereignty, his office said in a statement.

“The Iraqi authorities alone are entitled to deal with these practices and take the necessary measures to prevent them. They are called upon do so and to ensure Iraq does not become a field for settling regional and international scores and that others do not interfere in its internal affairs,” Sistani said.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/153906/Ayatollah-Sistani-condemns-US-attack-on-Hashd-al-Shabi

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Like I said, if we have power to overcome them then we should get involved. But many times we don't have power and we are made to live with oppressors rulers. This is what we Shi'as have been living in thousands years.

If I understand you correctly, then your saying that fighting against the enemies of Islam is not wajib unless victory is certain, is that correct?

 

2 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Qur'an is very clear in this matter brother. If you are specific in the matter of this, then those who cause fitnah and corruption and those who are enemy of God.

Whats the context? If you say it in a general manner, then one could argue that the government of Iraq is the enemy of God because parts of it is corrupt and at the same time say that the rioters are the enemies of God because they are causing fitnah.

As I understood you meant to say that those who cause suffering on Muslims are the enemies of Islam and if I understood you correctly then you were indirectly saying that the Muslims of Iran are the enemies of Islam because their fighting against the invading kafirs and zionists are causing Muslims suffering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sunshine
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

After condemning the American strike and calling those killed an Iraqi force, Sayyed Sistani said this:

The “illegal practices carried out by some sides” must not be used as a reason to violate Iraq’s sovereignty, his office said in a statement.

“The Iraqi authorities alone are entitled to deal with these practices and take the necessary measures to prevent them. They are called upon do so and to ensure Iraq does not become a field for settling regional and international scores and that others do not interfere in its internal affairs,” Sistani said.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/153906/Ayatollah-Sistani-condemns-US-attack-on-Hashd-al-Shabi

The  Iranian backed will lead us to another unnecessary war and blood shed that will not lead us to anything.  I have seen this story many times before. I feel like this their new election campaign for 2020 election. War against Isis was their most successful election campaign. Now they are trying to create new one with Usa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

After condemning the American strike and calling those killed an Iraqi force, Sayyed Sistani said this:

The “illegal practices carried out by some sides” must not be used as a reason to violate Iraq’s sovereignty, his office said in a statement.

“The Iraqi authorities alone are entitled to deal with these practices and take the necessary measures to prevent them. They are called upon do so and to ensure Iraq does not become a field for settling regional and international scores and that others do not interfere in its internal affairs,” Sistani said.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/153906/Ayatollah-Sistani-condemns-US-attack-on-Hashd-al-Shabi

What authority is seyyed referring to exactly?

The government has failed on many levels, one of them being in the protection of the Iraqis, as you remember it was the government forces (the army) who failed its people when it withdrew from the daesh advance in the north, leaving much weapons and military equipment after them. Then it was the Hashd that saved the people. So should the army listen to the Hashd or the Hashd to the army now? The army has already shown that its incompetence to deliver.

And the government is facing severe protests, many people don’t like them nor trust them. Nor do they much care for the voice of seyyed Sistani anymore it seems. So what authority is seyyed referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sunshine
4 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

The difference between peaceful protests and violent riots is that one includes vandalizing and the breaking of the law while the other one does not. Although some of the people are protesting peacefully some are also violently rioting and causing destruction. The later is what causes the instability and companies to withdraw.

  

There are honorable people from Iraq and there are not so honorable people from Iraq, nothings strange with that. Or do you mean to say that I should love Abu Bakr baghdadi as well merely because he is Iraqi? In fact many of my Iraqi friends, including my wife, laugh quite a lot when I tell them what another Iraqi said online. Merry christmas by the way.

As far as the post goes, I noticed I might have misunderstood the brother, thus the edit.

Do you understand what causes Riots? Riots often occur in reaction to grievance out of dissent. Riots happen among poor people with not jobs, bad living condition, governmental oppression and government not  willing to listen them. Riots are natural. They happen in any country that has big protest and you cannot really stop them.  Riots are basically product of the bad government.  For example If Iraqi government put Bad Pm. You will see huge riots in street.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sunshine
4 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

You do know there are Iraqis who are also interested in the same thing as Iran is as well right? I know many of them personally.

And since we are on the topic, what would you say Irans interests are? Evidently they are not ecnomical as they could have easily split Kirkuk with the Kurds and taken 50% oil incomes instead of making them hand it over back to the Iraqi government without people getting killed. The man who made that possible is the same man you now dislike.

 

Their interest arent just economic. They can control Iraq via Iraqi government. I mean Haider al amir has very close ties with Iran and he is leader of largest block in Iraq.  If Iran say something to him. He can basically commands his block follow their orders. He has invited Soleimani twice in meeting to choose PM candidate. The Iranian also control some militants groups in Iraq. For example Katab hisbollah. Some of the militants groups like Katab hisbollah works independently. Thats why they even have bases in Syria. Some people are worried about American meddling but Iran meddling is even more dangerous and deep. The Iranian backed took big risk for entering in Iraqi government in full force because their failure is going only damaging their reputation and power. They will eventually fail because they have no clue how to run country and they have no idea how to achieve stability. You don’t achieve it by killing and kidnapping people that has different opinion.. You don’t achieve by putting militants commander in Mp position. You will not achieve it by doing bad deals with foreign countries. If they are not filling to do large reforms. They are doomed to fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
40 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

What authority is seyyed referring to exactly?

The government has failed on many levels, one of them being in the protection of the Iraqis, as you remember it was the government forces (the army) who failed its people when it withdrew from the daesh advance in the north, leaving much weapons and military equipment after them. Then it was the Hashd that saved the people. So should the army listen to the Hashd or the Hashd to the army now? The army has already shown that its incompetence to deliver.

And the government is facing severe protests, many people don’t like them nor trust them. Nor do they much care for the voice of seyyed Sistani anymore it seems. So what authority is seyyed referring to?

The army and the hashd listen to the government, that's how it works. Military and militia leaders cannot take matters into their own hands. Iraqi Law is supreme.

The government is incompetent and corrupt, sadly, but at the end of the day it is the final authority in matters of law. 

There is no "state" if you have groups doing whatever they want without the consent of the government. 

The hashd al-shaabi officially only takes commands from the commander in-chief (Prime Minister), that's what the law says. 

Edited by Sumerian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

The army and the hashd listen to the government, that's how it works. Military and militia leaders cannot take matters into their own hands. Iraqi Law is supreme.

The government is incompetent and corrupt, sadly, but at the end of the day it is the final authority in matters of law. 

There is no "state" if you have groups doing whatever they want without the consent of the government.

Well, thats kind of my point, there is seemingly no state nor any proper government, so how can anyone listen to them especially when it seems to be the popular consensus that most of them are corrupt? Would you take orders from a person you consider corrupt?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sunshine
37 minutes ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

What authority is seyyed referring to exactly?

The government has failed on many levels, one of them being in the protection of the Iraqis, as you remember it was the government forces (the army) who failed its people when it withdrew from the daesh advance in the north, leaving much weapons and military equipment after them. Then it was the Hashd that saved the people. So should the army listen to the Hashd or the Hashd to the army now? The army has already shown that its incompetence to deliver.

And the government is facing severe protests, many people don’t like them nor trust them. Nor do they much care for the voice of seyyed Sistani anymore it seems. So what authority is seyyed referring to?

Do you know why  they failed? Maliki, Haider al amiri, Hakimi, Sadr and the other politicians that has been in Iraq politics over 16 years does not want make the army stronger because if you made the army stronger... The army will hunt them down one by one. You cannot make strong army without strong Judicial system. Iraqi Judicial institution is very weak and they made it purposely weak so they can corrupt without trials, investigation or prosecution. We have many bad Army leaders that has violated so many human rights and they are participating in  government. That tells you a lot about state of Iraqi government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

And the government is facing severe protests, many people don’t like them nor trust them. Nor do they much care for the voice of seyyed Sistani anymore it seems.

The only ones who don't care much for the voice of Sayed Sistani are the corrupt politicians backed by foreign governments. 

Had they followed his guidance 3 months ago, we wouldn't be here today.

Those corrupt politicians serving personal and foreign agendas bare major responsibility for this bloodshed and will be a reason for the ensuing chaos. 

Every foreign power battling over Iraqi soil resulting in innocent blood being spilt will be held to account. This is Allah Ta'alas promise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Soldiers and Saffron said:

Well, thats kind of my point, there is seemingly no state nor any proper government, so how can anyone listen to them especially when it seems to be the popular consensus that most of them are corrupt? Would you take orders from a person you consider corrupt?

Sistani has made it clear that Iraqis still have to obey the rule of law and the state.

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

Sistani has made it clear that Iraqis still have to obey the rule of law and the state.

I believe that rules of law are good.  The administrators are given problem.  The same with the US too.

Rules of law are not corrupt, but the integrity of administrators maybe compromised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
8 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

I do. I believe we are living in final times and the best thing for us is to not meddle in politics and wars. Because the enemies will escalate and cause more mess.

What if the situation where the US force on us to be in mess, so they can make us submit to their wills.  The US has done that in Syria (the US failed), Bolivia (recently), and very soon in Guyana (huge crude oil reserve). 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, layman said:

What if the situation where the US force on us to be in mess, so they can make us submit to their wills.  The US has done that in Syria (the US failed), Bolivia (recently), and very soon in Guyana (huge crude oil reserve). 

 

 

Really, the people of Iraq need to be united and the government needs to be justified. Then that government can tell foreign soldiers to leave once the nation is stable.

But at least for the time being, Iraq appears to have corrupt leaders that are interested in themselves more than their nation, and the nation further has dependence on the US and Iran, and so is hesitant to ask either to relinquish influence.

With the right judicial system, Iraq could become independent and strong. With time, I'm sure it will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

After 2+ hours of fighting this computer, l will now post, inshallah

To summarise the last two days, not copied but beginning on Thread-Page 26, from page 27:

19 hours ago, hasanhh said:

1] Most of these militias are lRl trained because the US failed. 2] Where does this "take orders" come from? 3] lRl was working with the US to combat IS. Now that Baghdadi and other leaders are out of the way, the US is using IS.

 

18 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Does the US even know who it attacked?

Well, as of several minutes ago, the US is now saying it attacked "Kateab Hezbollah" --who says 25 were murdered.

Iraq's Hezbollah brigades are unrelated to Lebanon's Hezbollah, and  are mostly the volunteers from Ayatollah Sistani's call to action a couple of years ago.

Kataeb is led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who the US condemns because the State Dept "linked him" to Quds Force.

Abdul Mahdi was called by Defense Secretary Esper a half-hour before the strike and Mahdi asked to strike to be halted.

Muhandis has "vowed" revenge.

https://apnew.com/cde30d5913e29ad7aa067fd09e84909e 

 

 

18 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Kataib Hezbollah existed way before the fatwa of Sistani bruv, they were operating during the occupation years and were fighting US forces since then.

They only recruited and expanded their size after the fall of Mosul and fatwa of Sistani, just like other previously established groups.

Muhandis is designated because the US accuses him of having a hand in the bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait during the 80s.

Recommended: Factbox:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-Iraq-security-usa-groups-factbox/factbox-Iran-backed-paramilitary-forces-in-Iraq-under-focus-after-u-s-strokes-idUSKBN1YY0WR 

Reactions: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/attacks-Shia-militias-reactions-region-191230175140132.html 

---Revenge Vowed:  https://apnews.com/cde30d5913e29ad7aa067fd09e84909e 

---Iraqi gov't condemns airstrokes as "dangerous": https://www.thebaghdadpost.com/en/Story/45254/U-S-air-strokes-will-have-dangerous-consequences-Abdul-Mahdi-says 

---Sadr:  https://www.thebaghdadpost.com/en/Story/45255/Iraq-s-Sadr-says-he-is-willing-to-work-with-Iran-backed-rivals-to-oust-U-S-troops 

8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

After condemning the American strike and calling those killed an Iraqi force, Sayyed Sistani said this:

The “illegal practices carried out by some sides” must not be used as a reason to violate Iraq’s sovereignty, his office said in a statement.

“The Iraqi authorities alone are entitled to deal with these practices and take the necessary measures to prevent them. They are called upon do so and to ensure Iraq does not become a field for settling regional and international scores and that others do not interfere in its internal affairs,” Sistani said.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/153906/Ayatollah-Sistani-condemns-US-attack-on-Hashd-al-Shabi

Motion to Expell the US:  https://www.thebaghdadpost.com/en/Story/45248/Iraq-s-speaker-calls-for-session-to-discuss-expelling-US-troops  OPINE: Most Likely for 'show'

And in what maybe another political convulsion:  https://www.thebaghdadpost.com/en/Story/45249/Salih-to-be-relieved-of-post-if-convicted-by-Federal-Court-Judge 

Stay Tuned

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

The hashd al-shaabi officially only takes commands from the commander in-chief (Prime Minister), that's what the law says

this contradicts whole of your previous posts that you claimed that  ' Hashd al Shabi leaders have  their own agenda under command of Soleimani & Supreme Leader of Iran '  

full text of  message of granda Ayatollah Sistani in Arabic (just for clarification)

تعليقاً على قصف القوات الامريكية لبعض القطعات الأمنية في مدينة القائم صرّح مصدر مسؤول في مكتب السيد السيستاني (دام ظله) في النجف الاشرف بما يأتي:

إن المرجعية الدينية العليا إذ تدين هذا الاعتداء الآثم الذي استهدف جمعاً من المقاتلين المنضوين في القوات العراقية الرسمية وأدّى الى استشهاد وجرح عدد كبير منهم، فإنها تشدّد على ضرورة احترام السيادة العراقية وعدم خرقها بذريعة الردّ على ممارسات غير قانونية تقوم بها بعض الأطراف. ان السلطات الرسمية العراقية هي وحدها المعنية بالتعامل مع تلك الممارسات واتخاذ الإجراءات الكفيلة بمنعها، وهي مدعوّة الى ذلك والى العمل على عدم جعل العراق ساحة لتصفية الحسابات الإقليمية والدولية وتدخل الآخرين في شؤونه الداخلية.

 

https://fa.abna24.com/news/اخبار-مراجع-عظام-تقلید/آیت-الله-سیستانی-حمله-به-گردان-های-حشد-شعبی-را-محکوم-کرد_762851.html

13 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

. We have narration that say that if we have power to overcome them, then it would be wajib to fight and claim the land to Muslims.

theses narrations also say that it will happen after reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) that before that Iraq will conquer by his wretch enemy that Shias of Iraq will do some resistance agaibst him but they will fail until Army of Iran & Yemen engages in war with him that current situation of Iraq shows why although by forming Hashd al Shabi  ,Iraqis can't stand against Sufyani (la) invasion of Iraq. 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

More protests:

Quote

US embassy staff and the US ambassador in Baghdad have been evacuated, according to two Iraqi Foreign Ministry Officials, as hundreds of Iraqi protesters swam the embassy compound.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/Iraq-protests-American-embassy-attack-violence-police-a9265131.html

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...