 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11779 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Jan 2007 : 18:00:32
|
This is a chance for a new Allah's Bank for Yaya Jammeh.
SUNDAY, JANUARY 14, 2007
3:30 MECCA TIME, 0:30 GMT
Chavez and Iran unveil anti-US fund
The presidents of Iran and Venezuela have agreed to spend billions of dollars to help other countries free themselves from what they describe as US domination.
Hugo Chavez announced the plan in a speech on Saturday with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The two also called for Opec to cut oil production to support falling crude prices.
They had previously announced plans to establish a joint $2bn fund for projects in Venezuela and Iran but on Saturday they said that the money would also be used to help friendly third countries.
"This fund, my brother," Chavez said, "will become a mechanism for liberation."
Chavez said the fund "will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the [US] imperialist yoke ... Death to US imperialism."
Ahmadinejad, who is on a tour of Latin America, said that Tehran and Caracas had the task of "promoting revolutionary thought in the world".
"The reason for all the current problems is the erroneous direction of the powerful countries, where there is poverty, hate, enmity and war," he added.
Oil agreement
The two presidents announced that they would make a joint effort to obtain new oil production cuts.
"Today we know that there is too much crude in the market, that's why we support ... the decisions that have been taken to reduce production and protect the price of oil," Chavez said.
He emphasised that he was sending the message "to all the heads of state in the Opec countries to continue to strengthen our organisation in this direction".
Members of the 11-nation Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) have expressed concern about the falling price of oil, which has slid 14 per cent since the start of the year.
Ahmadinejad has praised Chavez for his outspoken support of Iran's nuclear programme, which the US and European governments say may be part of a project to build atomic weapons.
Vocal supporter
Facing the threat of international isolation and sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council over its uranium enrichment work, Iran is keen to demonstrate it has backing among a number of leaders in Latin America.
Chavez is the most vocal supporter in Latin America for Iran and its president, with both men calling each other "brother" and relishing their status as fierce opponents of Washington's influence.
"Hugo is my brother," Ahmadinejad said during his last visit to Venezuela in September. "Hugo is the champion of the fight against imperialism."
In September 2005, Venezuela was alone in opposing a resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that found Iran in violation of nuclear safeguards. Chavez has since backed Iran's right to enrich uranium.
Iran and Venezuela are both important players in Opec and have signed numerous co-operation agreements in the energy sector and other fields.
During a visit to Iran last September, Chavez came out in support of Iran's nuclear programme, as well as denouncing Israeli military operations in Lebanon.
The two presidents also signed deals covering iron and steel production, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and health care equipment and munitions.
Cultivating allies
While Ahmadinejad seeks to cultivate Latin American allies, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is in the Middle East to rally Arab support for a new US strategy in Iraq and counter Iran's alleged "interference" in Iraq.
Ahmadinejad arrived in Nicaragua late on Saturday, where Daniel Ortega has just returned to power. The Iranian president was met at the airport by the new Nicaraguan president.
On Monday, Ahmadinejad will take part in the swearing-in ceremony of Ecuador's new president Rafael Correa, who has vowed to forge stronger ties with Venezuela and not to renew a lease for a US military air base on the country's Pacific coast.
The Iranian president will also hold meetings with other South American presidents including Bolivia's Evo Morales on the sidelines of the ceremony in Ecuador, before finishing his tour on Tuesday.4
Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/News/
|
|
|
Cornelius
Sweden
1051 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2007 : 23:29:15
|
You remember 911?
I believe that the Redemption – the arrival of the Messiah and what will follow will be very rapid indeed.
I don’t know if Hugo Chavez is going to be in Imam Mahdi’s army or if he will be on the side of the Crusaders. For all we know he has secretly taken baayat with Mahmoud and the Mullahs and that is why he has joined the vilification of the United States using the same terminology about Devil and great Shaitan. I don’t think that His Holiness the Pope will be happy about St. Hugo becoming Shia , because like His Holiness, Hugo - never mind his Marxist orientation, like Bishop Dom Camara and Liberation Theology , he also believes in the Apostles Creed which goes:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed
Now Mahmoud Ahmedinejad doesn’t believe in that just as Santanfara has made very clear. So the Iran-Venezuela alliance is a temporary marriage of convenience – and you know what happened to the Tudeh party in the early days of the Iranian Revolution.
Venezuela:
http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/terror_war/venezuela.html
Iran: Read this carefully: with the Election that was recently held as background.
http://regimechangeiniran.com/archives/
http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/search/label/Iran
President Yahya Jammeh's contribution to the Katrina New Orleans fund was impressive and touching. It was a gesture of solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the United States.
It’s also reported that “Yahya Jammeh, donated 1,000 tons of rice to Niger, with his office announcing in a press release that the donation was made through the Jammeh Foundation for Peace on behalf of the Gambian people.”
Not only because of inevitable Iranian involvement in Iraq in the coming months, there is little doubt in my mind that with the inevitable regime change that will take place in an Iran under not only economic pressure with people suffering, Ahmedinejad is not going to be president in Iran forever - if he insists that nuclear energy is to be acquired willy-nilly or if he believes that which I do not believe – that Imam Mahdi alaihi salaam will be in need of nuclear weapons as part of spiritual armoury, then regime change in Iran is likely before the Imam in occultation appears.
President Jammeh would sure like to pick up some extra cash – without it seeming to be a bribe. Since President Jammeh would – given the continued support and mandate of the Gambian people, like to continue with the progress he initiated in 1994, I hope that he does not stick his neck out in defiance and that he does increase his nearness to Iran at such a time. He certainly does not need to commit such a provocation and should he do so it will only make things more difficult for him should he at any time be perceived not as a threat (who can the Gambia threaten?) but should he be perceived as a nuisance, who perhaps would like to give diplomatic safe haven to jihadist types who are not very popular with the powers that be and that are in DC and Virginia. This is just the beginning of Iran’s new confrontational approach to precipitating what they believe, unlike the more Quietist school, that escalating matters to a point of unbearable suffering for Shias will force Imam Mahdi alaihi salaam to come to the rescue. During the Iraq –Iran war there were regular reports that the Imam alaihi salaam had been sighted ( on the war field?) riding a white horse – perhaps to keep the spirits up at the sacrificial warfront.
I am not denying that there are those who know how to contact Imam Mahdi alaihi salaam and I do not believe that he is far away.
|
Edited by - Cornelius on 14 Jan 2007 23:46:21 |
 |
|
|
Cornelius
Sweden
1051 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2007 : 10:02:51
|
Ali Shariati:
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=Ali+Shariati+&btnG=S%C3%B6k&meta=
PS: For the social justice of ANTI-PROSTITUTION also against other forms of economic exploitation, and to the glory of womanhood you could also read "Fatima is Fatima"
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Ali+Shariati+:Fatima+is+Fatima&spell=1
Correction ( an extract from my above posting should read:
" President Jammeh would sure like to pick up some extra cash – without it seeming to be a bribe. Since President Jammeh would – given the continued support and mandate of the Gambian people, like to continue with the progress he initiated in 1994, I hope that he does not stick his neck out in defiance and that he does NOT increase his nearness to Iran at such a time."
"The reason for all the current problems is the erroneous direction of the powerful countries, where there is poverty, hate, enmity and war," he added
Did Ahmedinejad actually say this as reported by Al-Jazzira?
Where is there poverty, hate, enmity and war?
Does he love the South American Catholics and Marxists and Africans e.g. Gambians, more than he loves the Sunni Arabs of Iraq and elsewhere - or does he not look forward to a greater consolidation of Shia power as could take hold in a formal or informal Iran-Iraq- Shia-Confederation and have as fulfilment of his dua that Hezbollah's Nasrallah wear the mantle of next president of Lebanon?
Dialogues between civilisations yes, but do such dialogues bridge the ideological divide between transitional Wilayat-i-faqih which aims at nothing less than ultimate world domination under an Islamic Government?
How is wilayat-i-faqih compatible with the Cuban or any of the Leftist ideologies of South America?
For a clear-cut answer you could read one of the great contributors to student education in the early days of the Iranian revolution: Ali Shariati and in particular I recommend his "Marxism and other Western fallacies" which he dismisses as KUFR and in favour of Imamism.
"Marxism and other Western fallacies"
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=Ali+Shariati+%3A%22Marxism+and+other+Western+fallacies%22&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=
Wilayat-i-faqih
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Wilayat-i-faqih&spell=1
KUFR
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=KUFR&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=
Unfortunately Chavez does not know the brother that he's in bed with, but the brother even under the hijab of Taqiyya, knows him for who he is and so do I.
This is being written in a great hurry and in the next posting I’ll try to look at more positive aspects.
The assumption is that the US “imperialism” is maintained through economic dependence on the US and that the Iran-Venezuela slush fund of the proposed 2 billion dollars which will put their money where their mouth is, will transform such relationships between Master and slave and cause such so called slave states to move into a new orbit as possible vassals of Iran and Co in what George Bush has described as the axis of evil (and what is the Sunni-Shia fighting if not that?)
In promising to provide this one billion dollars – a promise that the Islamic Republic will have to keep, Iran is doing so at the cost of great sacrifice of her own people, who themselves are in dire need of such succour – but such is the cost of winning or bribing international friendship – “a friend in need is a friend indeed” and maintaining that friendship might cost even more.
Assuming that Iran wants to extend its realm of influence far beyond the OIC nations, then who are the proposed beneficiaries and who are the potential client states – apart from the OIC nations?
Who are these friends – whose votes they would be needing in the general Assembly of the UN, to assure US compliance with the UN’s wishes when the US might be poised to take unilateral military action to knockout the nuclear sites of a non-compliant Iran in this grave matter of acquiring what is feared will be the first of its kind in world history, namely a Shia Nuclear Bomb or more, which many fear would not make the world in which we live, a safer place – given the Iranian tendency to a Martyrdom complex – and when the suicide–bomber mentality assumes the level of a higher level of commitment – like Hezbollah ( “the Party of Allah/God” ) also believed to be directed from above ( and in reality directed and certainly funded by Iran) we are talking of suicide-bomber mentality on a national scale, and a mentality that is prepared to take risks of “wiping out” other people – the seed Of Abraham known as Israel -and for the that sort of genocide crime against God’s humanity do they still entertain the hope of being rewarded with 72 virgins per man in the heavenly sex-sphere of Paradise?
However it’s possible that if Bolton’s wishes come true there will be no United Nations to contend with (or for the United States to finance)
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=3738#comments
(To be continued)
PS: For the social justice of ANTI-PROSTITUTION and to the glory of womanhood you could also read "Fatima is "Fatima"
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Ali+Shariati+:Fatima+is+Fatima&spell=1 |
Edited by - Cornelius on 15 Jan 2007 14:20:29 |
|
|
|
Cornelius
Sweden
1051 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2007 : 11:08:26
|
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1246824.php
According to a short news item from TT, Ortega is taking a more cautious position than his colleague from Venezuela, the Hugo Chavez – Ah-mad-in-e-jad rant about imperialism etc.…… Instead, Ortega has chosen to talk about” constructive agreement to combat hunger, unemployment and poverty”.
|
|
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2007 : 11:26:45
|
during the AU, these two gentlemen broke bread with president yayah, i wonder if bush is listening |
|
|
|
Cornelius
Sweden
1051 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2007 : 12:39:45
|
Sure, Uncle George is listening and can hear. He has many eyes and ears I'm sure even in the Gambia.
THis is ideology for Chavez, Ortega and others awaiting the visitation:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=sv&q=Dar+al+Harb+and+Dar+al-islam&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning
I have no problem with real Islam. But making an ideology out of hatred or taking the concept of Dhimmitude to an absurd length is not part of my vision, even given the clear dichotomy between Dar-al Harb and Dar-al Islam, in this post cold war era of international relations in which it is said that the old enemy Communism has been replaced by a new enemy called post-911 world of Islam – and so recently the demise of Saddam. The post Saddam world too - Saddam – Iran’s former enemy.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Dhimmitude&btnG=Search&meta=
To me , what is significant is that Ahmadinejad (no Mossadeq is he) does not take his message to unite all the tough guys in his neighbourhood – to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan etc, but flies all the way to South America , to preach to the already converted, to the seasoned anti-America Socialistic and Marxist left ( who are outlawed in Iran) – to St. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to the newly elected in Ecuador and to the recently re-elected Ortega who only got 40% of the votes this time round and after his past experiences with Reagan etc is not in a hurry to push his luck this time. I’m only speculating here since I don’t know the al-ghayb. We don’t know who the road manager is ( perhaps the Supreme Leader Ali Khameini) and we don’t know the rest of his world tour itinerary or his agenda for the other continents, and for India, Australia and Europe, but Ahmadinejad could soon be in Cuba and who knows could soon be leading the whole of Latin America and from there , perhaps to China for some anti-Imperialism talks there too, and then to Russia and North Korea – nothing else in the global agenda will do, seeking that nuclear partnership - still perhaps – before returning to his own borders to mobilise, unite and lead his immediate Islamic neighbourhood against the non South American, European and Asian kuffar, his “great and little” shaitan and – perhaps to also lead the counter-attack on the global jihad against the global ( and as he sees it Western ) war on terrorism.
Who knows?
Latin American tour
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/
These too have to be considered from the point of view of freedom of speech and freedom of dissent:
General State of Human Rights in Iran:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=sv&q=Human+Rights+in+Iran&btnG=S%C3%B6k
Human Rights in Iran
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran
Amnesty International in Iran
http://www.amnesty.org/airesults/search?sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=iso-8859-1&client=eng&proxystylesheet=eng&site=default_collection&lr=lang_en&q=Iran&submit=GO
Poverty in Iran.
Iran’s imperial ambition:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=sv&q=+Iran%27s+imperial+ambitions&btnG=S%C3%B6k
|
Edited by - Cornelius on 16 Jan 2007 13:35:07 |
|
|
|
Cornelius
Sweden
1051 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2007 : 19:26:25
|
Revised and partly corrected.
I intend to give the next part of on-going speculations - this time more concrete and closer to the truth in an hours time.
This was written in a great hurry so don't be pained by the letters flying out of place all over the page. It will be corrected and spruced up later and please don't shoot the piano player
It's an alternative take on Iran after talking to another loony lunatic who doesn't know what time it is, and who began by saying that there are those who say that all the Islamic Ummah's problems would have been solved centuries ago or even today if there were only Sunnis and no Shia, or if there were only Shia and no Sunnis.
What poppycock talk!
Nor do I believe in that Abdallah Ibn Sabah the Jew who is generally said (by Sunnis) to be the root and creator of Shiaism - although the Shia washing of hands for wudu is almost identical with the Jewish ritual washing of hands before eating bread.
What is certain, in my mind is the politics of divide-and-rule is in effect in Iraq as we can all witness the on-going carnage in which the Shia and Sunni are vying for ultimate power in that heartland of Islam and have a plentiful supply of weapons and bombs.
Latest: more carnage, blood and destruction:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6266707.stm
On yesterday’s HARDTALK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/6263309.stm
As far as divide and rule is applicable to Islamic lands, there is a disequilibrium between Shia ( 10%) and the Sunni 80% of the Ummah - failing which if there were only one stream of Islam , unity on the basis of the mutually accepted truth would have been easier, or at least feasible.
It's a long story and this thread is strictly speaking more political than religious.
There are those in the Ummah and out of it, who accuse Iran of working hand in hand or hand in glove with the United States and that all this belligerent anti American and anti _the Great Shaitan talk is just a smoke screen to deceive us all, and in reality, behind the scene they are working together -that there is taqiyya and there's taqiyya. And that there's super-taqiyya and there's even super-duper taqiyya or holy hypocrisy and a secret pact made clear:
After the 8 year war which Iraq with the help of Saddam's many allies imposed on Iran, somewhere along the half way it is said that a ceasefire and peace was a distinct possibility requested by Saddam but that Iran would have none of it and so went the distance to the very bitter end - eight years after which Saddam's air force flew over Teheran but only dropped a few bombs unchallenged master of the sky and flew safely back to base (-about a year before this bitter end Iran had sadly run out of ammunition and weapons and even Israel was no longer making any weapon deliveries to Tehran ) and Iran could no longer obtain weapons from anywhere not even Brazil for three times the normal cost - the sorrowful result of this was that Imam Khomeini ( r.a.) drank the poison chalice and agreed to peace.
That's one big problem that Iran has. It's a big country and big countries are not the easiest to defend.
During the Kuwait war Saddam flew his war planes - about half of his fleet to Iran for safe keeping - and never got them back. Understandably, I don't think that Iran was going to be foolish enough to forgive the too much Shia blood on Saddam's hands.
Now a few questions arise:
Did Iran want Saddam's power crushed?
Was Iran happy when the USA's military might (according to SHIA NEWS) toppled Saddam?
Could Iranian and the Iraqi Shia have toppled Saddam on their own?
In any case the USA did it for them and perhaps they are grateful.
So it's safe to conclude that at that point USA & Iran are the best of friends, in getting rid of Iran's enemy of Iran and the Shia.
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000400.php
Now that Iran's toughest rival on the block is out of the way ( but Syria is much tougher) - but in fact the second toughest and his half brother and their hanging judge have been summarily executed, hanged and beheaded and the 10% Shia are about to consolidate their power in that part of the world - the only problem being 1. the Sunni will not surrender to the idea just like that and 2, the Arab Shia and the Persian Shia are no longer the best of friends as during the time when the Iraqis were mostly in exile in Iran which became the major centre of Shia learning temporarily displacing NAJAF, Kufa (Imam Ali alaihi salaam's seat of power) Kerbala, Samarra. It is Iraq and not Iran after all that is the historic heart and centre of Shia Islam.
But in Shia Islam too Iran wants to fulfil its ambitions of being the leader of all Muslims (and the world too)
And how does Iran intend to unite the Ummah behind their Ayatollahs?
By giving the Ummah the impression that they are soon going to acquire a nuclear arsenal with which to ”wipe out” Israel - a sure rallying point for Teheran, Mashad and Qom.
With the Shia nuclear bomb it is speculated that they believe that they can unite all Muslims behind Ahmadinejad just as they mostly did behind Nasrallah of Hezbollah.
The Ummah knows that the Ummah will some day be united by the Mahdi alaihi salaam but in the meantime, IRAN wants to do as Mahmoud declared:
They want to wipe out the descendants of Abraham, Isaac Jacob, the twelve tribes and their followers. living in Tel Aviv and get Israel off the map .Teheran even invited Arafat’s rabbi(s) to their Holocaust Denial conference in Teheran, and I'm sure that those rabbis are as sincere to the Mullahs as the foreign scientists and spies working on their nuclear sites.
Good thing with the probable ex-communication of those rabbis.
More seriously you will get less objectivity and helpful criticism from praise –singing friend. But those who can identify the enemy accurately and anticipate his moves are worth listening to.
Marxist-Islamist coalition is a growing threat to America
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=3757#comments |
Edited by - Cornelius on 16 Jan 2007 22:43:22 |
|
|
|
Cornelius
Sweden
1051 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2007 : 23:50:25
|
http://www.yourish.com/2006/03/13/874
Iranian leaders speak out:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/666587f6-a506-11db-b0ef-0000779e2340.html
The sole purpose of this thread is because of love for the Iranian people and for the Iranian people to get their leaders to change course - from a course of action that will lead to untold suffering for not only the Iranian people. Just look at what's happening in Iraq everyday. It could be worse elsewhere and the enemies are more than the friends. Enemies can be heartless.
" WE are used to suffering and will eat grass if necessary " is not a good excuse for wrong action.
Since I don’t like pointing out the most obvious and we all believe that people should think – for themselves too:
One thing that we must all get right is that THE SHIA IN IRAQ HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED FOR A LONG TIME AND SUFFERED VERY MUCH - you have seen TV documentaries of the Marsh Arabs' water being drained haven't you seen that too?
Why is Iran now on this world mission – apparently - and so it would seem, to galvanise support for it’s approaching and almost irreversible military conflict with Super-Power, a conflict which Ahmadinejad's rhetoric to his staunch Shia masses will give the national illusion that Iran’s national redemption will be won/gained by war with the US?
In my opinion the world tour mission yet to take in Japan is for two reasons:
1.To get world support to put some breaks on president Bush who at the end of his presidential term will have nothing to lose by making a big bonfire conflagration where the Iranian nuclear sites at Bushre once used to be – and vanity will be punished to see billions of dollars not spent in reducing the poverty and suffering of the Iranian people going up in unholy smoke.
2.To get world support for the coming showdown when they take on the might of the Sunni world collected once again to this time do decisive battle in order to thwart the establishment of a nuclear armed Shia empire right in their midst – if they do not move against it in time.
3.Of course the world, including Venezuela will be supporting the other OPEC side that is not about to acquire nuclear weapons. That’s how it is. And just like the last war that was imposed on Iran, so too this one – once they are attacked by other than the United States or Israel, will have to defend themselves and that should be long, costly and debilitating war.
Of course the Mullahs who must place most of their trust in Divine providence or Divine intervention might not realise the vulnerability of all the cities in Iran including the bomb shelters where the Ayatollahs may be preparing to take cover( since they may perhaps mostly not believe in cause and effect and that when Jesus himself was nailed, he bled on the cross) and that they face probable annihilation by neutron bomb if, after the Holocaust which wiped out two thirds of European Jewry , the Islamic Republic ever makes the doomsday mistake of attempting to wipe out the Jews who are living in their God-given-land.
During the Iraq-Iran war, due to that extraordinary Foreign minister of Iran Ali Akbar Velayati, the Islamic Republic was not completely isolated – although it was impossible for Iran to purchase weapons from anywhere, North, South, East or West some months before the war inevitably came to an end.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Ali+AKBAR+VELATATI&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
But lets not jump the gun and a more chronological approach must begin at the root of the conflict between Shia and Sunni, between Shia and Shia and between Islam and the West. Anyway those who are interested in the subject know all about the roots and history of the Shia - Sunni conflict so I’ll skip that and jump a little ahead in the turbulent history of this rivalry: I would like to emphasise once more that IRAQ, the land of Iraq is the very HEART OF SHIA HISTORY.
Not desirous of boring anyone with details that can be found in their proper places we arrive by the ensuing words, at the heart of the problem which we have today : The Shia of Iran’s support of the Shia of Iraq. Given time and the peace within which to develop their nuclear capacity, indeed that nuclear power could replace Imam Ali’s double edged ZULFIKAR from that age of the camel, the sword, the bow and the arrow, before laser-guided missiles and nuclear-tipped submarines were dreamed of by the warriors of Kufa. With greater military power Iran is of course tempted to do its duty and play the role of supporting big brother – and just as the concept of Dar-al Islam would imply that Spain in fact rightfully still belongs to Islamists / Muslims because Islam once imposed Islamic sovereignty over that land and that Muslims should therefore recapture that country,( and sure would if they had the military muscle with which to do so) so too in this day of nation states and recent collapsed Empires, history can testify that
1. Iran became a Shia nation – Shia Islam became the official religion of that country under the Safavid Dynasty of Iran as late as the sixteenth century.
These links should be paid special attention to by those who are not aware of Iran’s religious history.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=The+Safavids&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=sv&q=The+Safavids+and+Shia&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning
To wind up now we may skip ahead to where we have been once before in this Forum:
2.NADER SHAH or Shah Nader.
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enSE205SE205&q=Nader+Shah&meta=
I once asked one of my occasional teachers, an Iraqi Shia professor from Qum, about Nader Shah. His first words were:” Nader Shah was an evil man”
Well, Nader Shah who was Shah of Iran ruled over an Iranian Empire that included vast tracts of what is today located in the country that we call IRAQ where Shia Islam dominated. He wanted to unify his Empire and to have ONE denomination within the empire enveloped by his vast borders and so decided to organise a debate between the Sunni and the Shia. I posted the proceeds of that debate some time ago and it’s published as ” Documents of the Right Word.”
The Sunnis won the debate ( there was probably some climate of fear and hanky-panky to account for someone ”winning” such a debate, and so it was somewhat back to Sunnism in his Empire.
http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Documents_of_the_Right_Word/
I should just like to observe, Iraq is about 55% Shia and then there are the Sunnis; up North we have the Kurdistani people (who are also Sunni).In a functioning democracy, 55% can constitute a majority and with such a uniform electoral majority, rule a country. Whereas in Iraq the deep divisions, the blood that has flowed will not make unity possible in the near future and it’s reasonable to expect that should IRAQ break up into three units in the near future, that part of Iraq, down to Basra, could be absorbed into and become part of the Iran –Iraq Shia Confederation....
|
Edited by - Cornelius on 17 Jan 2007 01:01:40 |
|
|
|
Cornelius
Sweden
1051 Posts |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
