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

Video: One of murderers of al-Aliyawi was spotted in a video in Iraq’s protests

The footage presented here is one of reshared videos of “rioters”, in which a few people fire toward the sky to excite the protesters.

The interesting point of this footage is at 1:07 that one of murderers of martyr Aliyawi can be seen who was martyred when transporting with an ambulance by this person and some others.

https://english.iswnews.com/8242/video-one-of-murderers-of-al-aliyawi-was-spotted-in-a-video-in-iraqs-protests/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iraq protests: What was the story of the deadly “tear gas grenade”
IraqMiddle EastNewsOpinion 02 November 2019
 

in the footages released about the protests, a peculiar incident can be seen which is not negligible, since these images excite and make the Iraqis mad the most.

From the beginning of the new round of protests in Iraq so far there are 10 cases that the teargas grenade hits the head of a protester and kills them.
For those who know little knowledge about military equipment or follow the news of protests in the world, this is very unnatural.
Basically teargas grenade does not follow a direct flying path to be aimed at someone’s head and more weird is that it hits the head and stays there until they die. Usually grenades follow a curved path and their speed or range are limited.

In the footages security forces are several hundred away from protesters and it is almost impossible to hit someone’s head with grenade and lands there! Unless Iraqi forces are using a new kind of teargas grenade which is unlikely as well. Since the main purpose of this grenade is to disperse the people not to kill them!

The only way to explain it is if the grenade is fired at a short range of 10-20 m which is more likely to aim at someone’s head. That also means the grenades are fired from among the protesters not security forces.

If someone still has doubts about the roots of the protests or at least part of it, no blame on them. But considering the experience from previous protests in other countries, these incidents and capturing them are not natural.
Of course this doesn’t mean to not be sad or feel sorry for victims. Casualties from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

You can always tell when British nation building is at work

The contracts for all the elements of statehood go to British companies who make the same stuff as they do back in Britain, so the hats these policemen wear are the same as those British bobbies do.

1563820350_Screenshot2019-11-03at09_16_37.thumb.png.911736402223389729728a634d83870a.png

 

Anyway at that time Britain was no independent observer of Iraqi affairs.

The IPC (Iraq Petroleum Company) was part owned by British interests and there was increasing tension between Iraqi governments and the IPC about Iraqi oil, quite funny how the British thought it was outrageous that Iraq have some say about the price of oil.

Quote

 

Much to the pique of the multinational oil companies and the British government, the policy of placation continued to guide the State Department. In September 1970, the chairmen of BP and Shell travelled across the Atlantic to convince the State Department of the policy's injurious ramifications. This position was best summarised by Shell's lead negotiator in Tripoli. To yield to Maghrebi would “demonstrate to the world” that the oil producers could “dictate the price of oil.” Similar demands, already called for by Algeria and Iraq, would swiftly spread to the other members of OPEC. 

 

Christopher R. W. Dietrich (2011) “Arab Oil Belongs to the Arabs”: Raw Material Sovereignty, Cold War Boundaries, and the Nationalisation of the Iraq Petroleum Company, 1967–1973, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 22:3, 450-479,

Still you seem to regard it as some sort of golden age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

^

You can always tell when British nation building is at work

The contracts for all the elements of statehood go to British companies who make the same stuff as they do back in Britain, so the hats these policemen wear are the same as those British bobbies do.

1563820350_Screenshot2019-11-03at09_16_37.thumb.png.911736402223389729728a634d83870a.png

 

Anyway at that time Britain was no independent observer of Iraqi affairs.

The IPC (Iraq Petroleum Company) was part owned by British interests and there was increasing tension between Iraqi governments and the IPC about Iraqi oil, quite funny how the British thought it was outrageous that Iraq have some say about the price of oil.

Christopher R. W. Dietrich (2011) “Arab Oil Belongs to the Arabs”: Raw Material Sovereignty, Cold War Boundaries, and the Nationalisation of the Iraq Petroleum Company, 1967–1973, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 22:3, 450-479,

Still you seem to regard it as some sort of golden age.

This was the 50s habibi, we all know the Iraqi Kingdom was a British client state. In the 60s, there was a coup against the Kingdom by nationalists like Al-Qasim, which took Iraq out the British sphere of influence and led to the complete nationalisation of Iraqi oil. This is what led to British presence in Kuwait in the 60s, as they feared an invasion by Iraq since then. Iraqi economic development never stopped after Iraq left the British sphere of influence.

Nominal GDP grew by 213% in the 1960s, 1325% in the 1970s, 2% in the 1980s, -47% in the 1990s, and 317% in 2000s.

Get your history right and then talk like an expert on the issue.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, al-Hashimi- said:

استغفرالله العلي العظيم

These ISIS barbarians are bringing shame to the Islamic Ummah and to the noble house of Bani Hashim by selecting these types of names. They commit the worst acts under the purest names.

It's not possible to fight these people with secular fighters. Only people who are religious in a more true way can tackle and act more fearless on the battlefield than those people. A lot of isis fighters are actually good but disillusioned and deceived people , who simply want Gods rule on Earth. They will fight with lots of passion seeking martyrdom. Secular fighters usually are scared to die. But fighters guided by real scholars of Islam have both moderation and lack of fear, while their leaderships prayers are heard, as they are not hypocrite agents of satan. Only hashd el shaabi can handle those monsters for this reason.same with hezbollah in Lebanon that deals with religious Zionists and religious isis fanatics.

Share this post


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

wa alaykum al salam.

Let me show you the dyanimics of Iraq. Iraq is slightly in Shi'a majority. The Kurds do not welcome Iran's intervention, the Sunni Arabs do not welcome Iran's intervention, that leaves us with Shi'a Arabs who are split but it is clear even most of them do not welcome it. If you put it to a vote, most Iraqis want Iran out. Why can't Iran respect that?

Wasalaam, well it is hard to judge and generalize how many people actually support or don't support Iran's interventions. 

It would be interesting to vote, but the votes would probably be rigged.

The problem I see is that people think that standing on the street shouting, and causing public unrest, and toppling governments will help solve corruption.

How do you know that whoever comes after you topple the government wouldn't be worse? How do you know that the intelligence agencies opposing Iran wouldn't use this civil disobedience to bring back isis or divide the country into an even more corrupted mess? Where are the leaders of those people in the streets and their action plan? Saying things like "non sectarian government", isn't really a plan that would guarantee no corruption I think.

When you call for a government with no or little corruption, I think you are calling for the government of Imam Mahdi without knowing it. Because please explain in context to other Arab spring protests that took place, where those protests are going, and how you expect any results of no corruption this way. How do you expect the zionists, wahabi isis lovers, American influence, and then Iranian influence to leave using such protests? Thank you 

Share this post


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

This was the 50s habibi, we all know the Iraqi Kingdom was a British client state. In the 60s,

So why did you post British propaganda celebrating what life was like at that time?

 

1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

Get your history right and then talk like an expert on the issue.

Well if you post imperialist lies, expect to get called out on it. And no, changing the subject doesn't help your argument. It just shows you realise that you should not have posted that video in the first place.

Edited by Haji 2003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

So why did you post British propaganda celebrating what life was like at that time?

What a joke of a reply. The point was to show how great life was when we didn't had dozens of sectarian militias running around shooting people. That doesn't mean Iraqis were happy with British presence, since they still revolted against it anyway and economic developed continued. 

14 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

lWell if you post imperialist lies, expect to get called out on it. And no, changing the subject doesn't help your argument. It just shows you realise that you should not have posted that video in the first place.

You are in fact the biggest apologist for imperialism. You talk against British imperialism but you welcome imperialism when it comes from Iran. Learn some history about Iraq then come talk to me about my country like an expert.

Nothing in the documentary was a lie anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Wasalaam, well it is hard to judge and generalize how many people actually support or don't support Iran's interventions. 

It would be interesting to vote, but the votes would probably be rigged.

The problem I see is that people think that standing on the street shouting, and causing public unrest, and toppling governments will help solve corruption.

How do you know that whoever comes after you topple the government wouldn't be worse? How do you know that the intelligence agencies opposing Iran wouldn't use this civil disobedience to bring back isis or divide the country into an even more corrupted mess? Where are the leaders of those people in the streets and their action plan? Saying things like "non sectarian government", isn't really a plan that would guarantee no corruption I think.

When you call for a government with no or little corruption, I think you are calling for the government of Imam Mahdi without knowing it. Because please explain in context to other Arab spring protests that took place, where those protests are going, and how you expect any results of no corruption this way. How do you expect the zionists, wahabi isis lovers, American influence, and then Iranian influence to leave using such protests? Thank you 

So you believe Iran revolted against the Shah and got rid of foreign influence, correct? Khomeini said "neither Eastern nor Western", meaning neither US nor Soviet Union. And you believe he succeeded.

Why do you believe Iraq would fail to do the same? 

Why is it wrong if Iraqis say "neither American nor Iranian"?

Share this post


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

So you believe Iran revolted against the Shah and got rid of foreign influence, correct? Khomeini said "neither Eastern nor Western", meaning neither US nor Soviet Union. And you believe he succeeded.

Why do you believe Iraq would fail to do the same? 

Why is it wrong if Iraqis say "neither American nor Iranian"?

Iranian revolution had a clear leadership that included spiritual moral ( = antidote to corruption) dimensions of Islamic scholarship and tangible research, with a clear plan by texts like the waleyt faqih outline and all kinds of plans that could be studied and were implemented.

In the Arab spring revolts there is no overt leadership, and no spiritual, moral, political plans. It is kind of aimless in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Basira

Sumerian

 

You talk like Iraqis have been so active in the Islamic Revolution and now they're tired!! Until now Iraq has never had the chance to be part of Islamic movement.

The revolutionary Iraqis were being oppressed for decades and then they inherited along with other groups a failed state from America. 

Anyway, this isn't about "Islamic movement". It's about regionalism and anti-colonialism. You may not like it because of some unhealthy bias, but Iran is the most successful anti-colonial story of our region and it's a model of authentic independence. Many Arabs are inspired by this and aren't affected by "anti-Persian" or "anti-Shi'a" propaganda. They respect Qasim Sulaimani instead of ungratefully insult the man who risked his life fighting shoulder to shoulder with other nationalities of the region against a common enemy. Whatever nationality we have, we have a duty to respect and love and support the Iranians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, and Iraqis who saved us from Saudi and Qatari and Turkish plots. By the way, helped by United States and Israel. We all know the facts how non-Muslim foreign policy and their accursed Muslim allies destabilized the region leading to thousands of deaths and displacements. 

 

 

The way youre hinting about Iran and a healthy economy is so materialistic and naive. Iran's economy is what it is because of Iraq's war against it in the 80s (which nationalists fail to redeem by at least promising a politico-military alliance with the neighbor they victimized with chemical weapons) and because of US-led sanctions because Iran wants nuclear powerplants and because it actively gives aid to the resistance groups that uphold sovereignty against the real military and economic interference in the region since the second world war: America and Israel.

When you measure Iran's performance against the sanctions which are the worst in history, actually Iran is doing pretty well. Luckily a very large contingent of Iranians aren't as materialistic and after 40 years aren't tired of aiding the resistance of Muslim countries against non-Muslim foreign policy. The people make the country. A materialistic people quickly gets tired and gets nowhere. A spiritual people perseveres and augments its power and prestige. Just compare Iran and Iraq from 1979 till today. You'll get the picture.

Your opinion about many Iraqis is false. There are plenty of spiritual Iraqis who don't measure Iran's performance with a Norwegian economy because they know that's unrealistic and they know it's unfair to Islamic Republic. But the Islamic Republic is a success story that's still happening. You point to what it lacks and I will show you what it will achieve in coming years. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Sumerian

 

You talk like Iraqis have been so active in the Islamic Revolution and now they're tired!! Until now Iraq has never had the chance to be part of Islamic movement.

Iraqis have been active in modern Islamic movements before even Iran. Parties like the Dawah Party existed since the 50s. They've been tried ever since America handed them Iraq on a golden plate after 2003, and they have failed ever since. It doesn't take 16 yeatd to build a proper road. You make hundreds of billions in oil revenue and the same towns in Basra that house oil infrastructure look like warzones without water and electricity. And you ask why people revolt against Islamists.

1 hour ago, Guest Basira said:

The revolutionary Iraqis were being oppressed for decades and then they inherited along with other groups a failed state from America. 

Let's not derail the facts. They conspired with America to takeover Iraq, and supported the invasion. By them I mean the main political Islamist parties. America regonised them as oppostion and propped them up. They are a partner to the occupation.

1 hour ago, Guest Basira said:

Anyway, this isn't about "Islamic movement". It's about regionalism and anti-colonialism. You may not like it because of some unhealthy bias, but Iran is the most successful anti-colonial story of our region and it's a model of authentic independence. Many Arabs are inspired by this and aren't affected by "anti-Persian" or "anti-Shi'a" propaganda. They respect Qasim Sulaimani instead of ungratefully insult the man who risked his life fighting shoulder to shoulder with other nationalities of the region against a common enemy. Whatever nationality we have, we have a duty to respect and love and support the Iranians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, and Iraqis who saved us from Saudi and Qatari and Turkish plots. By the way, helped by United States and Israel. We all know the facts how non-Muslim foreign policy and their accursed Muslim allies destabilized the region leading to thousands of deaths and displacements. 

Maybe you aren't hearing what the Iraqi people want. They want rid of colonialism, they don't want America nor do they want Iran. That is the highest form of anti-colonialism. What you want is for Iraqis to replace one form of colonialism with another form under the banner of "Islamic Revolution". Well I'm afraid most Iraqis reject that, and Sayyed Al-Sistani himself rejects that.

You can fight alongside someone and not impose your will upon them. There is a difference between fighting a common enemy and accepting hegemony. Like I asked, if someone helped you with something regarding your family, will you now welcome him to your home as the head of your household? No. Two different things.

1 hour ago, Guest Basira said:

When you measure Iran's performance against the sanctions which are the worst in history, actually Iran is doing pretty well. Luckily a very large contingent of Iranians aren't as materialistic and after 40 years aren't tired of aiding the resistance of Muslim countries against non-Muslim foreign policy. The people make the country. A materialistic people quickly gets tired and gets nowhere. A spiritual people perseveres and augments its power and prestige. Just compare Iran and Iraq from 1979 till today. You'll get the picture.

Meh. The sanctions against Iraq in the 90s were worse, they weren't US sanctions they were a international sanctions supported by the entire UNSC that imposed an entire trade blockade. Thousands to a million died and GDP nearly dropped to -50%, one of the largest recessions ever. 

There is a reason why Iranians keep voting in Rouhani and reformists. Have you seen the state of Islamic observance in Iran? Have you ever seen pictures from Tehran? It's not as you picture it. You see girls with towels on their head - "a hijab" skating around. If they really believed in the goals of the revolution they would be rallying support around more orthodox and conservative elements. 

Anyway Iran has done well to resist sanctions, but the Iranian people are not largely happy people. 

1 hour ago, Guest Basira said:

Your opinion about many Iraqis is false. There are plenty of spiritual Iraqis who don't measure Iran's performance with a Norwegian economy because they know that's unrealistic and they know it's unfair to Islamic Republic. But the Islamic Republic is a success story that's still happening. You point to what it lacks and I will show you what it will achieve in coming years. 

Most Iraqis want Iran out. Very simple. If Iran respected the will of the people, it should intervene in places where people want it to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

Iranian revolution had a clear leadership that included spiritual moral ( = antidote to corruption) dimensions of Islamic scholarship and tangible research, with a clear plan by texts like the waleyt faqih outline and all kinds of plans that could be studied and were implemented.

In the Arab spring revolts there is no overt leadership, and no spiritual, moral, political plans. It is kind of aimless in my opinion.

There are clear outlines for reforms demanded by protesters and supported by marja'iyya. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1100hrsEST, Sunday, 03Nov19

1] Naharnet(Lebanon) and France24 are running the same "lran Clings" story.  WUSA9.com is running a different lran/Lebanon/lraq story.

The usual "oh it's lran", "it is like the fall of the wall" hype.

2] While covering Saturday's events, Sundays protests are also covered. The 'tactic of the day' is blocknig more roads than usual. The 'sit in' in that vacant building in Tahrir Square is still occupied.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iraqis-block-key-roads-violent-anti-government-protests-continue-n1075741 

Edited by hasanhh
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 4:27 PM, Sumerian said:

These are reforms many protesters have asked for, especially regarding changing to a Presidential system and ridding the country of the sectarian and ethnic quota system enshrined by the constitution.

What a strange assertion. "We helped you so we have a right to interfere in your land". Tell me if someone helps your family, will you welcome him to make decisions inside your home? 

Every country has signed up to the UN charter - including Iran - that says you must respect the sovereignty of the other state and not interfere in their affairs. It didn't say if you help someone you can now control them. 

Every people have the right to run their country without another country interfering in their affairs. Iraq has rarely been given that opportunity. At the end of the day, all Iraqis want is a good economy and security. That's all. Geopolitics is the reason for the misery in Iraq. 

Iranians were never attacked for helping. You made that up. You do realise it is possible to help a country fight terrorists without controlling their government via proxies? 

Ok some protesters asked that but in which forms exactly ? There had been some votes ? Or just some people shouting that on the street ?

 

What do you call "interfering" ? Are we saying that Iraq is now part of Iran ? Are there some iranian flags currently put in in Iraqi territories instead of Iraqi flags ? It is not because iranians support some politicians that we are now governing Iraq now instead of iraqis.

Also if by proxy you are talking about armed groups supported by iranian government I don’t see where is the problem. These people are iraqis, not iranians we don’t force them to support Iran.

Also you always didnt give me names of politicians who could take the places of the current ones.

Share this post


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

 

You keep talking about Iraq Vs America/Iran anti-colonialism.

Start talking about Kurdistan Vs Iraq anti-colonialism.

Double standards? Or you just think Kurds have to accept decade of Baghdad's often brutal colonialism of their resources?

That's why modern nationalism is self-defeating.

Yes, if Iran's regime was nationalistic then I would agree with you. But it's a regime based on regional independence. They fought for it and have helped other people of the region to fight for it.

They are not colonizing Iraq. That's just your impression. But the impression is a mistake. They are cooperating with Baghdad in different ways, and not just the parties that have a history with them. But there isn't a pure party somewhere that isn't going to get corrupted. This is realpolitik. Any party that gets in power, Iran will cooperate with. Iran only will interfere against Iraqi government if Iraqi government cozies up to United States and makes Iran's already difficult situation more difficult. 

Logic of Iran's friends in Iraq is simple = Iran helped Iraq and Iraq should help Iran. Iraq's "national interest" is more closely tied to Iran's "national interest" then to America's "national interest". 

 

Before Ruhani was Ahmadinejad. After Ruhani is probably someone closer to the conservatives. He won by a small margin this second time. Anyway You make two big mistakes. First. Not everyone votes according to how close a party is to orthodox religion. They are running a government not a hawza. Second. Who said reformists are against the ideals of the Revolution? 

Proper hijab is not a marker of Muslimness. Yeah, for ultraorthodox people it is, but not everyone is ultraorthodox. It's a country of seventy eighty million and it was heavily Westernized in the past. There are different groups and factions like all countries. Democratic countries are split. It's the nature of democracy. Religious democracies follow the same pattern. Large numbers of people were not happy with Imam Ali's rule but that doesn't mean he was a bad or weak governor. If the perfect ruler can create a dissatisfied population decent governments can do and it doesn't mean anything.

The ideals of Islamic Revolution is that Muslim countries free themselves from non-Muslim foreign policy and to create a regional alliance against non-Muslim foreign policy which historically and currently divides and rules. This ideal succeeded in Iran. It helped Hezbollah liberate Lebanese land. It will save Iraq from the threat of fragmentation. As long as there is US interference in Iraq, or US allies love Saudi, they will always use separatists as a threat against Iraq. On the other hand, Iran has a real interest in a singular functioning and safe Iraq. United States and Saudi won't let Iraq do anything it wants. Iraq can't play neutral. US and Saudi want Iraq to be a buffer against Iran. It's their long-term objective. They want Iraq to pick a side: Be with them over Iran ... Or suffer the consequences including the threat of separatism. 

Like I said before, isolationism is not a realistic option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 313 Seeker said:

Really? Can you bring them here so we can discuss? Thanks 

Exposing who is behind the assissinations and killings of protesters, establishing councils to expose political corruption and establishing changes to allow for employment and public services.

8 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Ok some protesters asked that but in which forms exactly ? There had been some votes ? Or just some people shouting that on the street ?

They can be implemented by Parliament or referendum. The corrupt are not allowing for these reforms to happen.

8 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

What do you call "interfering" ? Are we saying that Iraq is now part of Iran ? Are there some iranian flags currently put in in Iraqi territories instead of Iraqi flags ? It is not because iranians support some politicians that we are now governing Iraq now instead of iraqis.

Interfering is having political parties that believe Tehran is their leader and make policy decisions that suit Iranian regional ambitions. This is governing by proxy. It is called having puppets and clients.

8 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Also if by proxy you are talking about armed groups supported by iranian government I don’t see where is the problem. These people are iraqis, not iranians we don’t force them to support Iran.

Okay so will you allow the United States to establish militias in Iran as long as they are made up of "Iranians"? My belief is this: there should be no armed groups allied to any foreign country in Iraq. 

8 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Also you always didnt give me names of politicians who could take the places of the current ones.

Let them declare constitutional amendments and early elections and you will see names come up. There are many civil parties anyway.

Share this post


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

You keep talking about Iraq Vs America/Iran anti-colonialism.

Start talking about Kurdistan Vs Iraq anti-colonialism.

Double standards? Or you just think Kurds have to accept decade of Baghdad's often brutal colonialism of their resources?

That's why modern nationalism is self-defeating.

Kurds suffered at the hands of Arab nationalism, not Iraqi nationalism. Iraqi nationalism has never been implemented ever, what it means is that all Iraqis are one under the nation-state, regardless of sect and ethnicity. Kurds are just as Iraqi as Arabs according to Iraqi nationalism, in fact the point is to accept the diversity in Iraq but eliminate any quotas in Govrernment. Kurdish nationalism is based on ethnicity and is exclusionary, Iraqi nationalism isn't. 

8 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

Yes, if Iran's regime was nationalistic then I would agree with you. But it's a regime based on regional independence. They fought for it and have helped other people of the region to fight for it.

That's like when the Soviets used to back these communist movements all around the world to "liberate" themselves from the US hegemony. Okay and what was the result? American hegemony was replaced with... Soviet hegemony. All under the banner of "people's liberation movements" and "anti-imperialism".

8 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

They are not colonizing Iraq. That's just your impression. But the impression is a mistake. They are cooperating with Baghdad in different ways, and not just the parties that have a history with them. But there isn't a pure party somewhere that isn't going to get corrupted. This is realpolitik. Any party that gets in power, Iran will cooperate with. Iran only will interfere against Iraqi government if Iraqi government cozies up to United States and makes Iran's already difficult situation more difficult. 

So what is your definition of colonialism? Is having parties and armed groups that do your bidding and believe in Tehran's leadership over them, not colonialism? 

This isn't "normal corruption" that can be dismissed, Iraq is a top 5 most corrupt country in the world. It is up there with Somalia and Afghanistan. It's not like these Iranian-backed (and Saudi-backed) parties have a few members gone rogue, no, the whole party is corrupt. Top to bottom. And Iraqis are supposed to shut up because the "Islamic Revolution" has propped them up? 

8 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

Logic of Iran's friends in Iraq is simple = Iran helped Iraq and Iraq should help Iran. Iraq's "national interest" is more closely tied to Iran's "national interest" then to America's "national interest". 

How about let the Iraqi people decide that? 

8 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

Before Ruhani was Ahmadinejad. After Ruhani is probably someone closer to the conservatives. He won by a small margin this second time. Anyway You make two big mistakes. First. Not everyone votes according to how close a party is to orthodox religion. They are running a government not a hawza. Second. Who said reformists are against the ideals of the Revolution? 

True Hezbollahis will tell you the likes of Zarif and Rouhani do not follow Khomeinist ideals. Watch their speeches and read their papers. Actually, you can read their comments on here. Do you really think something like the Iran Deal is a Khomeinist ideal? 

8 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

Proper hijab is not a marker of Muslimness. Yeah, for ultraorthodox people it is, but not everyone is ultraorthodox. It's a country of seventy eighty million and it was heavily Westernized in the past. There are different groups and factions like all countries. Democratic countries are split. It's the nature of democracy. Religious democracies follow the same pattern. Large numbers of people were not happy with Imam Ali's rule but that doesn't mean he was a bad or weak governor. If the perfect ruler can create a dissatisfied population decent governments can do and it doesn't mean anything.

Iran is not a democratic country at all (not saying direct democracy is good btw), it does not allow any non Islamists to run for office. It does not allow for more than two factions to exist. It is a theocracy with limited level of representation. 

Dissatisfaction is very important for sustainability. 

The analogy with Imam Ali (عليه السلام) does not make sense anyway, unless you believe Iran's system is somehow divinely chosen or inspired. Yes people and societies as a whole can be against the representative of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), that is clear from the Qur'an and Islamic history. 

The Holy Qur'an says:

 

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. [33:36]

This is regarding Divine commands and leaders, but when it comes to the modern world where normal people are part of the Government, people's dissatisfaction must be taken into account. 

For example, Sayyed Al-Sistani's opinion on wilayat al-faqih:

Question: What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion about Wilayat-e Faqih (governance of jurist)?

Answer: Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs to which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of Faqih among majority of momeneen.

8 hours ago, Guest Basira said:

The ideals of Islamic Revolution is that Muslim countries free themselves from non-Muslim foreign policy and to create a regional alliance against non-Muslim foreign policy which historically and currently divides and rules. This ideal succeeded in Iran. It helped Hezbollah liberate Lebanese land. It will save Iraq from the threat of fragmentation. As long as there is US interference in Iraq, or US allies love Saudi, they will always use separatists as a threat against Iraq. On the other hand, Iran has a real interest in a singular functioning and safe Iraq. United States and Saudi won't let Iraq do anything it wants. Iraq can't play neutral. US and Saudi want Iraq to be a buffer against Iran. It's their long-term objective. They want Iraq to pick a side: Be with them over Iran ... Or suffer the consequences including the threat of separatism. 

Like I said before, isolationism is not a realistic option. 

Again, you are acting as if Iraq has only two choice. Either with America or with Iran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arresting a terrorist with title of "Abu Harun " that he was trying to make fake incidents between protestors

18e2999891374a475d0687ca9f989d83_994.jpg

 

d0096ec6c83575373e3a21d129ff8fef_948.jpg
 
032b2cc936860b03048302d991c3498f_469.jpg

https://fa.abna24.com/news/اخبار-آسیای-غربی-و-خاورمیانه/بازداشت-یک-تروریست-در-بغداد-عکس_760140.html

Share this post


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

Again, you are acting as if Iraq has only two choice. Either with America or with Iran. 

Salam , if Iraq was in Europe  or America that wasn't between Israel & KSA & Iran ,you could have Balkanisation as  separated  Iraq to multiple countries between many sects & groups that you could be happy from it.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


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

Hawza and Shrine Staff walk in solidarity with the protests, referred to by some as "Operation Ajax 2.0".

 

نتیجه تصویری برای Hayder al-Khoei  نتیجه تصویری برای Hayder al-Khoei

 

image.png.d3940cf9ce5328e47d4542e8cadf673c.png

image.png.f2f1264b8f57f9eafba3a85313b00284.png

نتیجه تصویری برای Hayder al-Khoei+iran"

 

نتیجه تصویری برای Hayder al-Khoei+iran"

 

post-39-1229182859_thumb.jpg

http://jafariyanews.com/articles/2k7/SMKhoei_untoldstory.htm

http://cmi.fi/2019/03/22/iraqis-try-to-build-a-common-future-in-the-wake-of-isis-only-genuine-respect-creates-a-real-connection-between-people/

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


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

So you believe Iran revolted against the Shah and got rid of foreign influence, correct? Khomeini said "neither Eastern nor Western", meaning neither US nor Soviet Union. And you believe he succeeded.

Why do you believe Iraq would fail to do the same? 

Why is it wrong if Iraqis say "neither American nor Iranian"?

Burning buildings is not the right way nor is burning the embassy in Karbala

Share this post


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

Exposing who is behind the assissinations and killings of protesters, establishing councils to expose political corruption and establishing changes to allow for employment and public services.

They can be implemented by Parliament or referendum. The corrupt are not allowing for these reforms to happen.

Interfering is having political parties that believe Tehran is their leader and make policy decisions that suit Iranian regional ambitions. This is governing by proxy. It is called having puppets and clients.

Okay so will you allow the United States to establish militias in Iran as long as they are made up of "Iranians"? My belief is this: there should be no armed groups allied to any foreign country in Iraq. 

Let them declare constitutional amendments and early elections and you will see names come up. There are many civil parties anyway.

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

Share this post


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

I don't care who reported the news if the matter is true. 

نتیجه تصویری برای Hayder al-Khoei+iran"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Basira

I'm saying US will force Iraq to decide. 

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


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

I don't care who reported the news if the matter is true. 

False it matters the protests were peaceful now they're violent, Iraqis are threatening tp boycott Iranian goods to further cripple the country and the Iranian Embassy was burned.

 

Peaceful protests would not involve derogatory remarks or violence it's not protest then, also Iran has done a ton for Iran sending engineers to rebuild the country and this is how your people repay the favor?

Shias will further divide and separate because of nationalist Iraqis like you, it's fine though once your country is unrecognizable and people start becoming secular by the day don't complain you reap what you sow.

Share this post


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

 

They can be implemented by Parliament or referendum. The corrupt are not allowing for these reforms to happen.

Interfering is having political parties that believe Tehran is their leader and make policy decisions that suit Iranian regional ambitions. This is governing by proxy. It is called having puppets and clients.

Okay so will you allow the United States to establish militias in Iran as long as they are made up of "Iranians"? My belief is this: there should be no armed groups allied to any foreign country in Iraq. 

Let them declare constitutional amendments and early elections and you will see names come up. There are many civil parties anyway.

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 ?

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 ? 

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monday, 0500hrs 04Nov19  DeutscheWelleTV reported that 3 protesters were killed Sunday (other sources add 19 wounded) while "storming" the lranian consulate.

A summary of several events is found here:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/Iraqi-protesters-attack-Iran-consulate-Karbala-191103232545555.html 

NOTICE the PICTURE down below. Opine:: this reminds me of Operation Ajax were Ml6 and ClA handed out status symbols of neckties and ballpoint pens (Bic started producing in 1951) while here it appears to be Anonymous Masks (Time-Warner owns the rights and as l remember are produced in the US) are the "hey!-look-at-me" satus symbols being handed out.

https://www.dw.com/en/Iraq-protests-gather-steam-as-prime-minister-calls-for-return-to-normal/a-51100562  ln this article, the gov't "is calling on" (read "blaming") anti-gov't protesters to unblock roads and allow the exportation of oil because it is costing the economy "billions". The gov't is also planning to expand its payroll and hire more workers ---which is exactly what financially destroyed Greece.

Edited by hasanhh

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...