Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

It's a bit rich when Hamas can reject peace offers because, quote, they do "not believe"
Well stiff - the offers were made.
I think the Peres offer was the one of more territory, sea and air ports, open borders
and the like - this was rejected because (wait for it) a traffic accident in the West Bank
involving the IDF. Who were they fooling? Maybe it was yourself.
I take every radical's accusation as being an admission - in this case Hamas do
not accept a Two State Solution. No, all Jews must leave or die. They are arguing
from the standpoint of a defeated nation - dictating to the nuclear powered victors.

 

Not really. It began to take off after the 67 war. If you just keep putting in things and not recognising or reading what is put in then I take it that you are just deliberately stoping things being discussed. Look to the previous post I gave you. George Bush that is George Bush Junior the man who started the wars in the ME as well as arranging what is discussed here
http://www.conflictsforum.org/2011/permanent-temporariness/

and in my post here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...kill-soleimani.566892/page-15#post-1071368536

is the person who I have read is credited as the first President of the United States to be working with/for the Christian Zioists. They are of course now in Government.

Now you ignoring everything I say and coming up with something else is wasting my time.

 

That's not wasting time - it's bringing up inconvenient facts.
If we get a Sanders presidency (which we won't) I don't think support for
Israel will appreciably change. What ties America to Israel is that
1 - Israel is an ally of the USA, like Australia
2 - Israel has a common enemy in militant Islam (Israel today - the West tomorrow)
3 - Americans who are Christian have a great affinity with the nation of the bible.

As an aside - Hamas don't engage in much suicide bombings now BECAUSE OF THE WALL.
The Islamic Zionists targeted Israeli peace activists - the last thing Islam wants is peace.

 

It is not even having the curtesy to read what has been said. When you do not even read the reply to your last post, completely ignore it put some more blather, then you are appear to just be trying to distract. If I put in the time to answer your post as I did here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...kill-soleimani.566892/page-15#post-1071368536 post 371

and follow up here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...kill-soleimani.566892/page-16#post-1071368586

and you completely ignore everything which was said as a response to what you said then you are not interested in reading what I have said. You are wasting my time.

never mind totally ignoring the content of first post
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...kill-soleimani.566892/page-15#post-1071368363 post 365

you were apparently replying to. You ignore everything I say and you are not in discussion at all and are clearly just wanting to take things away from what has been said and are wasting my time. You cannot have a two way discussion where one person makes comments which are refuted and then the other just ignores that and throws in some more. I am here to debate and if you ignore all my posts there is no debate. For instance if you had read post 371 you would have been able to know when Christian Zionists were stepping in politically. You made no comment on this post at all even though I had answered the incorrect things you had put in. You just decided that if the US had not always been at this it was impossible they were now. Clearly you are totally unaware that things change.

You are wasting me time and there is no point in me replying to you as you are just ignoring what I say.

 

Bye the way the reason why the State Department did not originally support Israel was for two reasons. I. The wanted good relations with the ME and had promised to help them to achieve Self Rule. They correctly saw that if they removed that from the Muslims and Christians of Palestine they would be seen for the fake they would be and likely would not have good relations with the MR who at that time thought very well of them.

The second reason they did not agree with partition was because they believed that the only way Israel would ever be able to keep her territory would be to be at perpetual war which she would be always looking for more land and claiming she was the victim and needed security.

That State Department's judgement was completely correct.​

 

The solution to all these problems is simple: Think--in reason, with respect towards Individual Rights, and for Capitalism-- facts before feelings, your life yours to live, force is banished. What more could the rational mind want, but life itself as a reasoning, productive, prosperous, happy soul, instead of being fodder for the tyrants who murder, torture, and enslave (Maduro, Xi Jinping, the Ayatollahs, and way too many more for any who value their own life and liberty)--and who do it in the name of self-sacrifice for the good of all, for the good of the nation, for the good of the community, for the good of the tribe, for the good of any collective, but never for your own good? What type of mind chooses slavery over liberty? Humanity over self? Faith over Reason? Death over life? Anything over Capitalism? What kind of mind? Those, like Putin, Assad, and Kim...and even our own mini-wannabe tyrant, Trump.

 

And thanks again, Israel. Now finish it and wipe the Earth free of Islamic tyrants.

 

Why are you talking gibberish. Give your head a shake. We don't assassinate dignitaries/generals of other nations - because we don't like them .. or should we start doing this to Russian and Chinese leaders ?

This millennia old covenant exists for a reason - and it is even more important these days. Do you not realize how easy it is for a Nation State to assassinate people ?

Have you put no thought into the consequences of this covenant being thrown into the trash bin ?

 

Pretty much.

Not possible. It is so. The Jew religion is among things them leaving Egypt after their God massacred innocent babies, to go on to the land of Canaan to commit genocide with the blessing of their god. And look at them buggers go and ethnically cleanse around in the WB, and kill anybody who opposes that.

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0606.htm#1

 

Israel is by far the most condemned nation on the planet again and again for it's utterly violent oppression of the Arabs it ethnically cleansed decades ago.

The right of self determination was never recognized. The Arab civilian population was never ASKED if they wanted to be part of Israel. The Jews simply ethnically cleansed them by the 100.000's.

So the Jews ethnically cleansed 100.000's of civilians.

Calling me a liar when the truth is that the Jews ethnically cleansed around and had genocidal orders. tss tss. You're still stuck in zionistic propaganda. We all know the truth:

The Haganah broadcasts called on the populace to 'evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven' The orders of Carmeli's 22nd Battalion were 'to kill every [adult male] Arab encountered' and to set alight with fire-bombs 'all objectives that can be set alight. 15,000 civilians were evacuated from Haifa during 21–22 April. Leaving some 30–45,000 non-Jewish citizens.[33][34] By mid-May only 4,000 from the pre conflict population estimate of 65,000 Palestinian Arabs remained. These were concentrated in Wadi Nisnas and Wadi Salib whilst the systematic destruction of Arab housing in certain areas was implemented by Haifa's Technical and Urban Development departments in cooperation with the IDF's city commander Ya'akov Lublini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Haifa_(1948)#The_battle

 

Illegitimate rulers in what way? Because they were foreigners?
Unjust tyrants, specifically to the Iranians? Because of the "heresy"?
Do you feel Iranians/Shia hold power in the world today?

Got it.

I once watched a really nice documentary on the ancient Persian empire, expansive, vibrant, with leaders whose names have come down through history. All centuries before the Arabs had a religion to lift them up. It seems natural that there would have been some sort of tension.

What of these "other reasons" among the down trodden and disenfranchised?

I see, a line in the sand to maintain your own identity. well, now seems a good time to ask a minor cultural question, if I don't I'll never know. We have a Muslim family down the street with three children, all three have Arab names even though they are Indonesian. Do Iranians also use Arab names?

political, philosophical, and theological, I'm interested to hear it all.

 

I offered you a vid of this fellow:

Eric H. Cline (born September 1, 1960) is an historian, archaeologist, and professor of ancient history and archaeology at The George Washington University (GWU) in Washington, DC, where he is Professor of Classics and Anthropology and the former Chair of the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, as well as Director of the GWU Capitol Archaeological Institute.

He says 'not so fast', it looks as if some percentage of the Canaanites moved up the coastline and became part of the Phoenician culture. So perhaps not a complete and total genocide as described by the scribes of the victors.

 

If the poster you replied to really knew the religious texts of the Jews, he'd have known better than write such a drivel.

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0701.htm

So much for the genocide that wasn't.

Recent genetic research seems to indicate that descendants of ancient Canaanites still live in Lebanon.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ble-ancient-dna-lebanon-genetics-archaeology/

 

So the point stands that the Jews believe their God supports even genocide if that is what it takes to thieve the land of Canaan. It's their believe, as in religion, their personal indoctrination. That it might not even happened to begin with, is totally besides the point, since that is not what the Jews believe.

 

Your post doesn't mention the battle of Jericho, where according to the Jew believe,.. they did kill everybody including the animals. And I sourced it's there so you know. You did not dispute a thing.

 

I will explain all of that in due course, but let me address first a couple of the points you have raised and asked me about below. That will also help in some ways setting the proper framework in discussing the more theoretical issues as well.

Iran's history, however, is poorly told in the West, except in the most scholarly type of sources.

A quick way to understand the history of IRAN is to first understand that IRAN is not just Persia. And it never was just Persia. Using that term creates artificial breaks in the history of IRAN. Artificial in the sense that it doesn't fit the indigenous understanding of that history for most of it (the medieval Islamic period a partial exception). And, artificial, because it is simply an inaccurate description of the various Iranian empires which ruled much of the region: under the Achaemenids (contemporaries of ancient Greece, and famous in western historiography as a result of the Greco-Persian wars, who were Persian, but who ruled in the name of a confederacy of Iranian tribes, the Persians as well as the Medes, and who referred to both their Persian and Iranian identity); under the Parthians (contemporaries of Rome, who were referred to erroneously by the Romans as Persians, but who in actuality were Iranian but not Persian); or under the Sassanian dynasty (also contemporaries of Rome, and a major rival to the Romans and subsequently the Byzantine empire as well, who were Persian but ruled in the name of IRAN as "king of kings of Iran" and called their empire "Iran-shahr" or IRAN).

Besides that, while the Achaemenid dynasty gets some good 'press' in the West since Cyrus is noted for freeing the Jews from captivity and since he is referred to as the "Lord Anointed" in the Torah/Bible (much of the Torah, and new Judaism, emerged in fact under Persian influence and was collected by emissaries such as Ezra and Nehemiah of the Persian empire and contained what would be basically propaganda to ease Persian rule over that region), and because of other reasons (including the fact that the West-East division eventually became a division between Christendom and Islam, with Iran's ancient Zoroastrian faith not seen as the enemy any longer), in actual fact the long lasting division in people's minds, culturally, and in other ways, between East and West dates to the so-called Persian empire: first, the Greco-Persian wars, then Alexander's conquest of the Persian empire, and subsequently 7 centuries of warfare between Iran and Rome (later Byzantine empire) with Iran claiming the mantle and territories of the Achaemenids while the Romans claimed Alexander's conquests as their own. In this division, the aspiration of IRAN was centered mainly on the realm of IRAN specifically, and at its greatest extent, to simply the region now known as the "Middle East" (those areas ruled by the Achamaenid dynasty). Iran has no ambition or aspiration to rule Europe, at least not since the defeat of Persian attempts to conquer Greece during the Greco-Persian wars. The Romans, however, aspired (but failed) to conquer Iran itself.

The literature from the period is filled with the kind of 'tension' you allude to. Indeed, there was a whole movement, called the Shubbiya movement (taking its name after a Koranic verse) which was mainly about this very thing. As one example from the medieval literature -- and there is a whole genre of this type of literature:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iranian-identity-iii-medieval-islamic-period

Shia Islam, from its inception, was popular among two groups the most. Those Iranians who, as I have explained, did not accept the legitimacy of the new order. And, secondly, those who were most marginalized in Islamic society and who were alienated from it as such. The latter may not have been Persian/Iranian but they too didn't accept the legitimacy of the caliphate -- and found Shia Islam a vehicle to express their dissent.

For many centuries, the typical names picked by Iranian parents for their children were Arabic names, akin to Christian families picking Arbrahamic names for their Children. That is still common today, but not as common as it was in the past and today many Iranians, if not a majority, are increasingly choosing Persian names instead.

In this regard, however, let me note the following: For Iranians, "Shia Islam" served for a long time as the proper synthesis between their "Iranian identity" and their quest to maintain it, and their new Muslim faith. Especially as the Persian renaissance had already seen the flowering of Persian literature and language, making Persian the cultural and administrative lingua franca of much of the Islamic world, from the Ottoman empire which fought Iran over the Shia-Sunni division, to Mughal empire in India, all of which were (before westernization), Persianate in culture.

While westernized Iranians still view "Shia Islam" or anything associated with "Islam" as a representative of this so-called "alien" or "Arab" culture, the truth is that the greatest threat to Iranian identity after the ascendancy of western civilization and its success in eclipsing the Irano-Islamic civilization, has been from the West, politically, economically as well as culturally. In a way, the last Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi), although playing a role in rekindling many aspects of Iranian nationalism (albeit, one that I would call pseudo Iranian nationalism, imbued with westernized notions and understanding of Iran), represented this larger unsettled dichotomy among westernized Iranians. After all, even in celebrating 2,500 years of the Persian empire before his foreign guests, in a gathering meant to remind people of the "grandeur" of Iranian history, even the food his guests were served was flown from Maxim of Paris!

Iran has its own distinct cultural, political and philosophical identity. It is neither Western, nor Arab. It is Iranian. Of course, any culture that lives insulated and in isolation loses much of its vibrancy and merit. Iranian culture itself has found its greatest heights when it has allowed itself to learn and adapt from others around it. The first Persian empire itself was somewhat like the US today: it had an 'imperial culture' that brought together the best from all the ancient civilizations of the Middle East it had conquered, much like the US culture does today from the cultures of the West (and elsewhere). Subsequently, even at war with Rome, Iran itself had acquired as much as it gave back (and it gave back a lot more than people realize) from western culture during the Parthian and Sassanian period. And the same was true, even more so, during the Golden Age of Islam and subsequently, in all the influences from different culture that produced what became Persian culture. However, there is a difference between learning from other cultures and blindly following them. The difference also points to something that is relevant to what I will discuss later about "Shia" Islamic theory, namely proper "source of emulation" for common folk. In Shia Islamic ideology, a properly trained scholar (called a mojtahid or Ayatollah, who has attained this rank after finishing his studies and publishing his treatise and accepted by his peers in much the same process someone becomes a tenured professor in the West or in Westernized institutions of higher education), while having complete "academic freedom" to reach independent conclusions about so-called Islamic law, are the only people who properly can be chosen by 'common people' as their "source of emulation". Emulating anyone else, whether a 'evangelical type' Muslim taking scripture and interpreting it as it appears to them, and worse yet, emulating any foreign group, polity, or institution, wouldn't be itself quite a contradiction to what Iran's "Platonic" philosopher kings and scholars have had in mind.

 

I won't be able to address all these issues in any length here. I will give below some quotes from different sites that suggest some of the differences and issues you need to be aware of.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-shiia.htm

Ja'fari jurisprudence - Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article below doesn't do a great job in explaining the actual Shia methodology and approach, but it gives hints of the differences that exist on two of 'sources of law' under, namely consensus and reason. The actual or prevailing Shia position on consensus as a source of law is that the relevant consensus is the consensus of Shia scholars now and at each point in time. The prevailing Shia position on reason is that it is a primary source of law and, for trained scholars, perhaps the most direct and reliable method of reaching truths. The Sunni position became one that rejected reason as a source of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_sharia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_clergy

Shia clergy

All that aside, here is where you can find the influence of Persian culture, and its mystical tradition, on even Ayatollah Khomeini. The poetry from Ayatollah Khomeini is not what you would find any Muslim scholars from traditions outside those nurtured by Persian culture.
https://goaloflife.files.wordpress....-of-love-mystical-poetry-of-imam-khomeini.pdf

 

You certainly had me fooled!

 

You understand that they are European soldiers in the mid east too. The US should not take any action that will jeopardize those EU troops without informing them and in most cases get their blessing. Why do you think after we formed a coalition with EU in the Mideast that we should not have to ask before we take steps that could put their sons and daughters in more danger.

 

But doesn't aid the US with anything. The US is not using the bases in Israel to attack Israel, as they do with Turkey. It's only a religious ally of the right wing conservative Christian/Jewish bunch.

There is no such thing if Israels falls today, than the West falls tomorrow.
Israel is an insignificant small country compared to the west.

The Abrahamic religions we got are Judaisms, Christianity and Islam.
They all share the same common stories. They all share the same common predating mythology.

 

Israel only became a full blown ally during the Six Day War when the Soviets went on nuclear
alert. Same thing happened in the 1973 war. Israel is a strategic ally of the USA - certainly there
are lots of
1 - influential Jews in America who support Israel
2 - Christians who support Israel
3 - non-religious Americans who support Israel
4 - people who hate Islam who support Israel
5 - defense contractors who work with Israel on the ground who support Israel
6 - people who believe in Western liberal democracy who support Israel

But allies are temporary - national interests are permanent.
After the Munich Massacre one Jew stated "What they do to us today they will
do to you tomorrow." I remembered that statement and wondered if it was true
about Islam - events show it to be the case. Israel isn't just the enemy - we all
are.

 

Islam doesn't "share" common stories.
It rewrote them.
Certainly Islam claims the Jewish presence in Palestine from the last Bronze Age,
its monarchies, temple etc are all mythic. That's not the case.

 

yes, and a flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah...

You know that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic faiths? All are aware that God instructed the Jews to take Canaan, build a temple, wait for a new Messiah.

The nature of their God does not fit your image of a god.

 

Wow! that's a lot to unpack.

First let me say thank you for taking the time and making the effort.

It will take me a while to process (read, research, glimpse the nuances) this material.

Aisha is an enemy of the imams? How so?

You know this is a hard pill for non-Muslims to swallow.

The knowledge of this makes trust difficult. Personally, it brings to question whether the friendly experiences of foreign exchange were little more than smoke. That's disheartening.

to wit, Iran will always be a theocracy?

does this not leave you in conflict with many of your neighbors, such as Syria, Jordan, and Turkey?

And this seems as good a place as any to ask you about the Shia perspective on the KSA. Is it legitimate?

In light of recent events in Syria, would you say that Iran still maintains a "quietist political policy"?

I will continue with the rest of your post later.