British PM embarks on Mid-East tour to sell weapons

British Prime Minister David Cameron has embarked on a tour of the Middle East region in a highly unusual trip in which he is acting as a travelling salesman for weapons.

The cash-strapped Britain is so desperate that its prime minister is personally pushing to sell as many as 100 Typhoon fighter jets to despotic regimes in the Middle East irrespective of their bad human rights records.

Cameron’s trip has raised “serious questions” about the UK government’s commitment to promoting peace in a region already struggling with uprisings and revolutions.

Britain’s deployment of warplanes to the region is a destabilizing factor as most critics believe.

Green MP Caroline Lucas says while the economy needs a boost the Prime Minister should draw the line at “dirty money”.

“Unfortunately the UK has a shameful track record of exporting arms and equipment to regimes in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Libya - we can’t now claim to be on the side of peace and democracy while our Prime Minister acts as a travelling salesman for the arms industry.

“It’s time to urgently review our role in the international arms trade. Our economy may need a boost, but we certainly don’t need this dirty money”, Lucas added.

Henry McLaughlin, from the Campaign Against Arms Trade, added: “The Prime Minister claims that he wishes to support democracy in the Middle East but at the same time sells arms to these authoritarian regimes.

“Despite everything that has happened in the last two years, the UK government continues to bolster authoritarian regimes with weapons sales and to spend taxpayers’ money on promoting further deals”, he said adding that “they don’t just approve arms sales, they promote it.”

Britain and other western European countries, as well as the U.S. believe they have an absolute right to control the oil-rich Middle East region, therefore, they employed the Zionist regime of Israel as their watch-dog in the area.

MOL/MA/HE

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/11/05/270594/weapons/

British PM resorts to Iranophobia to sell weapons

[img]http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20121105/lotfi_morteza20121105190228253.jpg[/img]


British Prime Minister David Cameron resorts to Iranophobia to sell weapons to Arab dictatorships in the Middle East region.

Mon Nov 5, 2012 7:45PM



Under fire at home and abroad for acting openly as a salesman for the UK’s weapons industry, Cameron resorted to demonizing Iran in his desperate bid to sell as many as 100 Typhoon fighter jets worth £6billion to Persian Gulf countries of UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Speaking on a visit to the United Arab Emirates, David Cameron again accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, alleging that “it would make the Middle East a more unstable and more dangerous place".

However, he failed to acknowledge that selling more than 100 state of the art fighter jets and thousands of other types of weapons to undemocratic regimes could also be a destabilizing factor in a region already struggling with uprisings and revolutions.

The Prime Minister of cash-strapped Britain also failed to answer whether it was appropriate for “Mr Cameron to promote British arms sales to regimes which have given rise to human rights concerns”.

It is now an open fact that cash-strapped Britain desperately needs money, so much so that its prime minister takes representatives of weapons manufacturing companies with him to authoritarian countries and resorts to Iranophobia to sell fighter jets and other weapons to Arab dictators.

And it is also an open fact that Iran, as a responsible member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a signatory to nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has always been ready to cooperate with the IAEA to ward off misunderstandings and resolve technical issues and questions over its peaceful nuclear energy program.

MOL/MA/HE

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/11/05/270623/iranophobia/

LagosShia:
Green MP Caroline Lucas says while the economy needs a boost the Prime Minister should draw the line at “dirty money”.

“Unfortunately the UK has a shameful track record of exporting arms and equipment to regimes in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Libya - we can’t now claim to be on the side of peace and democracy while our Prime Minister acts as a travelling salesman for the arms industry.

“It’s time to urgently review our role in the international arms trade. Our economy may need a boost, but we certainly don’t need this dirty money”, Lucas added.

Henry McLaughlin, from the Campaign Against Arms Trade, added: “The Prime Minister claims that he wishes to support democracy in the Middle East but at the same time sells arms to these authoritarian regimes.

“Despite everything that has happened in the last two years, the UK government continues to bolster authoritarian regimes with weapons sales and to spend taxpayers’ money on promoting further deals”, he said adding that “they don’t just approve arms sales, they promote it.”

The whole thing with the arms sales smacks of a blatant attempt at promoting terrorism in Islamic states. Unfortunately Saudi Arabia is too pro Western to put Islam first and not use those weapons for evil.

Cameron is a shameless terrorist. He even had the nerve to come out and defend his actions as quite proper in spite of the critisisms from different angles and in spite of the fact that S.A. had used such weapons in the past to murder innocent Yemeni civilians.

fellis:

The whole thing with the arms sales smacks of a blatant attempt at promoting terrorism in Islamic states. Unfortunately Saudi Arabia is too pro Western to put Islam first and not use those weapons for evil.

Cameron is a shameless terrorist. He even had the nerve to come out and defend his actions as quite proper in spite of the critisisms from different angles and in spite of the fact that S.A. had used such weapons in the past to murder innocent Yemeni civilians.

I am surprised that you assume that being pro west makes a country place Islam second and use weapons for evil

When Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait, Saudi Arabia which was also pro-west supported Kuwait against Sadam
When the US wanted to dislodge the Taliban (a Sunni group) from power, they had allies in the Northern Alliance (a Shia group)
When HezboLlah (a Shia group) took Americans hostage, Iran (HezboLlah's back) assisted the US to get them freed
Iran was on the verge of deepening relationship with the US but things cooled when Pres Bush (Jnr) called Iran part of the Axis of Evil

I am also not certain that military sales per se will promote terrorism. The actions of Russia (which is not a western country) in repressing the Muslim people of Chenchya promote terrorism. People who are oppressed - whether their oppressors get their weapons from the West or East - take to terrorism. The Muslim group in China (Uighurs) will take to terrorism should the oppression reach a certain level

Countries look after their own internal security first and will get weapons from anywhere to protect themselves. That is reality
Syria is currently getting weapons from the East (Russia and China). Do you think that civilians will not be killed with them?
If the West want to arm Syria, it will not object

From your post I get the feeling that you think I am on the side of Assad/Iran.

I am not on any side, and when I said they will use those weapons for evil, I was talking about their using them in their war against their Muslim brothers. (whether Shia or not, these are still their fellow Muslims and they really shouldn't be fighting each other).

And you are correct, being pro western does not always translate to doing wrong except that in this case, the west are not showing any interest in ending the Syrian war, rather their actions make it seem like they want the killing of Muslims to continue.

I believe that if serious effort is put into it, diplomatic talks can end this conflict. That is what the both parties should be interested in, not in buying weapons to employ in continuing the war.

BetaThings:

I am surprised that you assume that being pro west makes a country place Islam second and use weapons for evil

When Saddam attacked and occupied Kuwait, Saudi Arabia which was also pro-west supported Kuwait against Sadam

The US-Saudi relation is a master-slave relation.and why do I say so?

The saudi rulers feel secure and safe with american military presence in the arabian peninsula.they shield themselves against their own people.a clear example in action is bahrain.the majority is against the monarchy.bahrain houses the largest american navy fleet in the gulf.saudi arabia sent in troops to supress the revolution in bahrain.of course the west is silent.

Not only at that.let us go to palestine.the palestinian cause is dead is saudi dictionary.the relationship saudi arabia is having with the west in the last 10 years from the time of bush jnr. doesn't tolerate any anti-israel policy which would translate to a pro-palestinian position.this isn't what I think.this is what is happening.israel is having relations with the GCC states,and saudi arabia is the leading GCC state.Shimon Peres visited Aljazeera office in Qatar.and this is an arab country that is meant to have no diplomatic relation with israel (at least not directly and openly).the king of bahrain is reported to visit gaza under israeli protection.this is the same israel laying siege to gaza.

Saudi arabia,qatar,jordan and formerly egypt under mubarak are viewed by the west as "moderate arab states" which translate in reality to "moderate arab slaves".its as simple as it can get.

There is no harm in having relation with the west if that relation is built on mutual respect and cooperative exchanges.but again how can that ever be with the west which sees itself as the "boss"?

When the US wanted to dislodge the Taliban (a Sunni group) from power, they had allies in the Northern Alliance (a Shia group)

The northrn alliance is not a Shia group.not every group having good relations with iran I Strwia too is "Shia".

Regardless,even if the northern alliance is Shia,it still doesn't negate the fact of the saudi-US relation being one sided.why are you trying to distort facts here? For God's sake Sunni islamists are the most opposed to the saudi monarchy.this isn't a Shia-Sunni debate.

The west is trying hard to use the Shia-Sunni differences to work for its agenda in the middle east.but the fact remains that the politics of arab dictators giving the illusion that Sunnis are pro-american is a passing cloud.it will last for so long as the dictators remain and the people can be deceived.its just a matter of time before jordanians and saudis take to the streets asking for their respectives kings to go.

The iranians who are Shia have done it against their pro-west Shah (king) and the king too was Shia.so I see nothing Sunni or Shia in telling the west that muslims are tired of killing themselves and are tired of been dominated unjustly.this has to stop.now take how the clown David Cameron and the west at large are stoking up tension with iran and scaring the sunni arabs of the "Shia persian monster" to extort billions from the rich arabs in arm deals.terrible! Don't let the vampire thrive on muslim blood and money.enough!

When HezboLlah (a Shia group) took Americans hostage, Iran (HezboLlah's back) assisted the US to get them freed

This is a misrepresentation of the facts.when americans were taken in beirut it wasn't first of all by hezbollah as we know it today.those who took the americans hostage, on the ground they were CIA agents fuelling the lebanese civil war and taking side with the christian militias in lebanon that were allied with israel, eventually joined hezbollah based on what I've read.regardless,in every hostage taking incident there must be negotiation on terms to either make a prisoner swap or in exchange for something.you perhaps forgot that during that time in the early 80s iran itself had americans from the embassy of the US in tehran which was overran during the islamic revolution taken as hostages for 444 days.report has it that ahmadinejad was then a student leader who took part in storming the US embassy and taking their staff accused of being CIA agents and aiding the tyrannical Shah (king) against his people hostage.

Iran was on the verge of deepening relationship with the US but things cooled when Pres Bush (Jnr) called Iran part of the Axis of Evil

For a reminder since 1979,iran has had no diplomatic relation with the US.there is no american embassy in tehran and no iranian embassy in washington.so your "deepening relationship" is relative to bias.

Regardless I have nothing against relation with the US if its built on honest friendship in favor of muslims and which would see beneficial exchanges for both sides.america has to accept and respect islam as the religion of muslims and dare not ignore that.its politics must show regards for muslim populations and not for the tyrants.the saudis alone have so much investments in america,that threatening to remove those investments from america will force america to resolve the palestinian problem.if saudi remove those investments from the US,and stop pumping oil,the US economy which is the main backer of zionist israel will go on its knees.the muslims have all it takes to solve their problems.but there is no political will and the west will block all attempts at muslims uniting or having strong leaders to act with one voice.and with the ignorance prevailing among muslims,its a real pity.

I am also not certain that military sales per se will promote terrorism. The actions of Russia (which is not a western country) in repressing the Muslim people of Chenchya promote terrorism. People who are oppressed - whether their oppressors get their weapons from the West or East - take to terrorism. The Muslim group in China (Uighurs) will take to terrorism should the oppression reach a certain level

People have a right to defend themselves regardless of the reality on ground in chechnya,china or anywhere.the issue here is not even terrorism.it is selling weapons to tyrannical regimes.and funny enough these same tyrannical regimes like saudi arabia backed by the west want to export "democracy" which they lack to syria.isn't that funny? That is reason enough to doubt their intentions in syria and see the reality that there is a sectarian agenda in syria to divide muslims further and to install a pro-west and anti-iran regime in syria similar to the arab dictatorships in bahrain and saudi arabia that work under the commands of the west and serving israel's interests.

Countries look after their own internal security first and will get weapons from anywhere to protect themselves. That is reality
Syria is currently getting weapons from the East (Russia and China). Do you think that civilians will not be killed with them?
If the West want to arm Syria, it will not object

Of course civilians are been killed as we speak regardless of who is accusing who of the killing.but why sell arms in a tense region and to dictatorships? Is that the peace britain is exporting? And the point is their weapon business is thriving because they further work for division in the middle east.iran for instance has its own home based/made weapons.you can imagine the billions they are losing because tehran is not buying their weapons.why not iran,saudi arabia and the other countries work together to produce their weapons and reach common understanding to serve the interest of the muslims? Why must saudi arabia fall for the british agenda of division and for muslims to face each other? Unfortunately,its because the peoples' interests aren't taken into consideration.

LagosShia:
The US-Saudi relation is a master-slave relation.and why do I say so?

The saudi rulers feel secure and safe with american military presence in the arabian peninsula.they shield themselves against their own people.a clear example in action is bahrain.the majority is against the monarchy.bahrain houses the largest american navy fleet in the gulf.saudi arabia sent in troops to supress the revolution in bahrain.of course the west is silent.

Not only at that.let us go to palestine.the palestinian cause is dead is saudi dictionary.the relationship saudi arabia is having with the west in the last 10 years from the time of bush jnr. doesn't tolerate any anti-israel policy which would translate to a pro-palestinian position.this isn't what I think.this is what is happening.israel is having relations with the GCC states,and saudi arabia is the leading GCC state.Shimon Peres visited Aljazeera office in Qatar.and this is an arab country that is meant to have no diplomatic relation with israel (at least not directly and openly).the king of bahrain is reported to visit gaza under israeli protection.this is the same israel laying siege to gaza.

Saudi arabia,qatar,jordan and formerly egypt under mubarak are viewed by the west as "moderate arab states" which translate in reality to "moderate arab slaves".its as simple as it can get.

There is no harm in having relation with the west if that relation is built on mutual respect and cooperative exchanges.but again how can that ever be with the west which sees itself as the "boss"?

Under Shah Palavi, Iranian relationship with US was also "master-slave" like you said. Iran, under Khomeini, did not buy weapons from the West because they West refused to do so while Iran was holding US hostages. Much later, afer the release of these hostages new hostage issues arose in Lebanon with Iran implicated.
I also believe that there should be mutual respect but Iran has built its respect on a culture of blackmail - they suicide bombed US out of Lebanon. They used hostage taking to drive US and France out of the place through their allies - HezboLlah. see below

LagosShia:
a clear example in action is bahrain.the majority is against the monarchy.

Syria is equally an example. Majority of the people are against the minority Alawite ruling there. I remember you once presented Assad's Syria as a modern secular state. So if secularism is your ideal why do you celebrate the Islamic state of Iran. Under Palavi, Iran was a secular state, how come you support its switch to an Islamic state
I mean, In Iran shias are ruling a majority shia country - Islamic state is ideal in this case
In Syria, Shias (Alawites) are ruling a majority sunni country - Secularism is perfect. Interesting. Suppose that the sunnis like their brother in Iran want to be under an Islamic constitution?

LagosShia:
David Cameron and the west at large are stoking up tension with iran and scaring the sunni arabs of the "Shia persian monster" to extort billions from the rich arabs in arm deals.terrible! Don't let the vampire thrive on muslim blood and money.enough!

Cameron is not the problem! Iran is. Iran is a big and powerful country. Khomeini said that Saudi Arabia was run by a band of heretics. You, LagosShia, have said that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are illegal occupiers. With that kind of talk any sane ruler of any country will arm itself to the teeth! Saudi is not afraid of its citizens. It fears Iran and it readiness to goad Saudi Shia citizens to violence. Look at these videos


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UkYIoWtpj8



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJox1KDmNeI

LagosShia:

The northrn alliance is not a Shia group.not every group having good relations with iran I Strwia too is "Shia".

Regardless,even if the northern alliance is Shia,it still doesn't negate the fact of the saudi-US relation being one sided.why are you trying to distort facts here? For God's sake Sunni islamists are the most opposed to the saudi monarchy.this isn't a Shia-Sunni debate.

You are forgetting that I was responding to Fellis post and trying to tell her that both Shia and Sunnis cooperate with whoever will give them arms - East or West

LagosShia:
This is a misrepresentation of the facts.when americans were taken in beirut it wasn't first of all by hezbollah as we know it today.those who took the americans hostage, on the ground they were CIA agents fuelling the lebanese civil war and taking side with the christian militias in lebanon that were allied with israel, eventually joined hezbollah based on what I've read.regardless,in every hostage taking incident there must be negotiation on terms to either make a prisoner swap or in exchange for something.you perhaps forgot that during that time in the early 80s iran itself had americans from the embassy of the US in tehran which was overran during the islamic revolution taken as hostages for 444 days.report has it that ahmadinejad was then a student leader who took part in storming the US embassy and taking their staff accused of being CIA agents and aiding the tyrannical Shah (king) against his people hostage.

You keep talking about misrepresentation of facts. Yet you are the one always rewriting historyu

Forget what you have read- These are facts. They are verifiable from documentaries with videos of dramatis personae of those period
khoemeini was in exile in Iraq, Kuwait and France (1978)
He championed a revolution from France in 1979 that led to the collapse of the Shah's regime
Students breached American Embassy and took Americans hostage. Yes Ahamdinajad was one of them
Hostage issue led to collapse of Jimmy Carter regime
Iraq invaded Iran
Iran wanted Shah's loot repartriated and also for weapons to be sold to It. West refused
Hostages released under Reagan Presidency
1982 - Israel invaded Lebanon; Shis in Lebanon asked Iran for help. Iran could not because of it war with Iraq
But it assisted in setting up and training Hezbollah
1983 - suicide bombing by "Islamic Jihad" an ally of HezboLlah in Beirut. Rafiqdoust (a then-commander of Iranian Republican Guard later admitted that Iran helped in this act of "martydom"
1984 hostage taking starts - By Hezbollah (this is a fact. No CIA agent will take an American hostage. From Nixon's experience this is political suicide. You can also read Rumsfeld's book on this. Furthermore Chirac (French President) specifically and publicly thanked the Iranian government for its help in securing the release of their own hostages. Rafsanjani (Iranian president - 89 to 97) confirmed it, Mohsen Rezaee (then Head of Revolutionary Guard confirmed it
1989 - Bush Snr became president and appealed for help in his opening speech. "Goodwill will beget goodwill"
1991 - Iraq invades Kuwait and paved the way for American forces to get close to Iran - a development that softened Iran somewhat

LagosShia:
For a reminder since 1979,iran has had no diplomatic relation with the US.there is no american embassy in tehran and no iranian embassy in washington.so your "deepening relationship" is relative to bias.

My name is not Michele Bachman. I know that America broke relations with Iran in 1979
Be deepening, I mean going beyond backdoor channels like using intermediaries to talk to Iran. Both Rafsanjani and Khatami worked for that. Khatami (who was not even Khamenei's candidate) nearly succeeded but the Khobar bombing incident ruined it

LagosShia:
.if saudi remove those investments from the US,and stop pumping oil,the US economy which is the main backer of zionist israel will go on its knees.the muslims have all it takes to solve their problems.but there is no political will and the west will block all attempts at muslims uniting or having strong leaders to act with one voice.and with the ignorance prevailing among muslims,its a real pity.

If Saudis stopped pumping oil, US will without any doubt invade it. Pls we are not babies
But this will give Iran an opportunity for Iran to move in! Love your recommendations. The way Khomeini played Shah Palavi was impressive by the way. One voice indeed. The way the peaceful protests turned very very violent as soon as Khomeini stepped into Iranian soil in 1979

LagosShia:
.it is selling weapons to tyrannical regimes.and funny enough these same tyrannical regimes like saudi arabia backed by the west want to export "democracy" which they lack to syria.isn't that funny? That is reason enough to doubt their intentions in syria and see the reality that there is a sectarian agenda in syria to divide muslims further and to install a pro-west and anti-iran regime in syria similar to the arab dictatorships in bahrain and saudi arabia that work under the commands of the west and serving israel's interests.

You don't say. Very funny indeed. Assad's Syrian regime that is buying weapons from Russia and China is not tyrannical? Really? So the Syrians voted for Assad in a popular election to take over from his late father?
Sectarian agenda in Syria? What is the population of Sunnis in that country?
What is the population of the ruling Alawites?
And Iran does not have sectarian agenda?
You should assume sometimes that your contradictory statements and positions can be discerned by others

LagosShia:
Of course civilians are been killed as we speak regardless of who is accusing who of the killing.but why sell arms in a tense region and to dictatorships? .

Please ask Russia and China and their democractic arms buyer - Syria
I have said it - Shias have too much in common with Christians!

LagosShia:
Is that the peace britain is exporting? And the point is their weapon business is thriving because they further work for division in the middle east.iran for instance has its own home based/made weapons.you can imagine the billions they are losing because tehran is not buying their weapons.why not iran,saudi arabia and the other countries work together to produce their weapons and reach common understanding to serve the interest of the muslims? Why must saudi arabia fall for the british agenda of division and for muslims to face each other? Unfortunately,its because the peoples' interests aren't taken into consideration.

Whether home-based or imported, weapons increase tension and do kill. Until those guys have their own factories, asking them not buy create a monopoly. does it not?
Iran does not want to work together with anyone. Watch the 2nd video again!
Iran wants to throw out the "illegal occupants" of Saudi Arabia and control the oil field
Like a leader of HezboLlah said when they had to reluctantly release hostages on the instruction of Iran. "a rich country like Iran will always have its way with people like us". You can imagine how much the control of Saudi oil field will help further help Iran exercise such powers.
But think again, unless Iran has a pact with Russian trying to take over Saudi oil field in order to bring american economy to its knees will be worse than a pyrrhic victory

BetaThings:

Under Shah Palavi, Iranian relationship with US was also "master-slave" like you said. Iran, under Khomeini, did not buy weapons from the West because they West refused to do so while Iran was holding US hostages. Much later, afer the release of these hostages new hostage issues arose in Lebanon with Iran implicated.

Why would the west refuse to sell Islamic iran weapons? Is it not because the islamic revolution removed their slave (pahlavi) from power and freed iran from western hegemony happening in saudi arabia today?

Why did saudi arabia and the rest of the arabian slaves backed saddam in attacking iran? The west wanted to terminate the islamic regime quickly in iran,so they unleashed their dog (saddam) in iraq to attack.I'm I right here?

I also believe that there should be mutual respect but Iran has built its respect on a culture of blackmail - they suicide bombed US out of Lebanon. They used hostage taking to drive US and France out of the place through their allies - HezboLlah. see below

What was the US doing in lebanon? Please answer!

Syria is equally an example. Majority of the people are against the minority Alawite ruling there. I remember you once presented Assad's Syria as a modern secular state. So if secularism is your ideal why do you celebrate the Islamic state of Iran. Under Palavi, Iran was a secular state, how come you support its switch to an Islamic state
I mean, In Iran shias are ruling a majority shia country - Islamic state is ideal in this case

In Syria, Shias (Alawites) are ruling a majority sunni country - Secularism is perfect. Interesting. Suppose that the sunnis like their brother in Iran want to be under an Islamic constitution?

Assad is giving freedom to all minorities in syria.and the idea of sunnis being a majority in syria can be disputed if the numbers are properly identified.

Sunnis in syria make up about 70% of the population if you put arab sunnis and kurdish sunnis together.

Your "suppose" here is an assumption.arab sunnis and kurdish sunnis do not have the same political agenda.the kurds want an ethnic kurdish homeland carved out of iran,iraq,syria and turkey.they don't give a damn about your sunni fanaticism.in syria presently,your sunni Kurdish PKK is fighting alongside Assad against turkey and the sunni terrorists.if you take out the kurds and also the turkmen and other sunnis that are non-arab,your arab sunni fanatics would barely make up 50% in syria.the sunni arabs are there too who support bashar al-assad.

Regardless,your hypocrisy is astounding.you're very sick! You want an islamic republic in syria but you reject it in saudi arabia where an un-islamic monarchy rules.syria is not as homogenous as iran where in spite of the many ethnicities in iran,at least 90% of all iranians are Shia Muslims.I know it pains and the truth is bitter but you need to change your ways.they are a waste of precious time.

I support the islamic regime in iran because it was through a popular revolution and two referendums that iran got an islam system of governance.the revolution in iran did not come with Ayatollah Khomeini asking NATO to interfere and bomb his country as we see the opposition in syria doing.we didn't see also terrorists groups like alqaeda and authoritarian regimes like saudi arabia fighting for "democracy" in iran as we see them do in syria.

The iranians lived at a time there was no aljazeera,internet and facebook.yet millions of them went to the streets and brought down the shah of iran in spite of the brutality the shah employed.with aljazeera,facebook,internet and weapons,we have not seen one anti-assad protest in syria that made up to just 100,000 syrians.you want Sunni islamic rule in syria,let the syrians go to the streets.what we have seen several times in syria is millions protesting in support of assad and against the western interference.assad is still popular among his people.the majority of syrians support him and that is why with all the weapons and money and terrorists pouring into syria against him,assad is still firm.I keep saying if mubarak in egypt could have gathered one million egyptians in the street like the syrians protesting for assad,mubarak wouldve survived.

Let the syrians choose want they want.it is not terrorists,authoritarian wahhabi regimes and NATO bombs that make a revolution or bring democracy.a revolution is a popular uprising by the defenceless people.if the iranians could do it in 1979 without outside help against a brutal shah,I don't see why millions of syrians cannot do it in 2012,if they truly have the will.the fact is they don't.

Cameron is not the problem! Iran is. Iran is a big and powerful country. Khomeini said that Saudi Arabia was run by a band of heretics. You, LagosShia, have said that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are illegal occupiers. With that kind of talk any sane ruler of any country will arm itself to the teeth! Saudi is not afraid of its citizens. It fears Iran and it readiness to goad Saudi Shia citizens to violence. Look at these videos

Monarchy is un-islamic regardless of what Khomeini said.Makkah and Medina are the lands of all muslims.the al-sauds have no right to put them under saudi jurisdiction.the OIC or a council of islamic scholars should govern those lands.simple if you're really after islam and not after supporting tyrannical monarchs for sectarian fanaticism.

You are forgetting that I was responding to Fellis post and trying to tell her that both Shia and Sunnis cooperate with whoever will give them arms - East or West

Cooperation is fine but when it is domination its evil.the west is imperialistic and the chinese and russians too.the most important thing is not to give them an upper hand in your backyard.the west exploit the differences in the middle east to its benefit.also we should never forget that the core issue is palestine.once the palestinian issue is resolved,many issues will die on their own.israel and the west will continue to set rivalries,fuel arms race and sow discord among muslims to proliferate side issues that will take attention and effort away from palestine.sunnis and shias have lived for centuries.israel is the tumor.

The al saud clan itself came to power in the hijaz with british colonial approval.the al saud with confirmed jewish heritage will not work to unite muslims.they will work for what their masters want to keep them in power.

You keep talking about misrepresentation of facts. Yet you are the one always rewriting historyu

Forget what you have read- These are facts. They are verifiable from documentaries with videos of dramatis personae of those period
khoemeini was in exile in Iraq, Kuwait and France (1978)
He championed a revolution from France in 1979 that led to the collapse of the Shah's regime
Students breached American Embassy and took Americans hostage. Yes Ahamdinajad was one of them
Hostage issue led to collapse of Jimmy Carter regime
Iraq invaded Iran
Iran wanted Shah's loot repartriated and also for weapons to be sold to It. West refused
Hostages released under Reagan Presidency
1982 - Israel invaded Lebanon; Shis in Lebanon asked Iran for help. Iran could not because of it war with Iraq
But it assisted in setting up and training Hezbollah
1983 - suicide bombing by "Islamic Jihad" an ally of HezboLlah in Beirut. Rafiqdoust (a then-commander of Iranian Republican Guard later admitted that Iran helped in this act of "martydom"
1984 hostage taking starts - By Hezbollah (this is a fact. No CIA agent will take an American hostage. From Nixon's experience this is political suicide. You can also read Rumsfeld's book on this. Furthermore Chirac (French President) specifically and publicly thanked the Iranian government for its help in securing the release of their own hostages. Rafsanjani (Iranian president - 89 to 97) confirmed it, Mohsen Rezaee (then Head of Revolutionary Guard confirmed it
1989 - Bush Snr became president and appealed for help in his opening speech. "Goodwill will beget goodwill"
1991 - Iraq invades Kuwait and paved the way for American forces to get close to Iran - a development that softened Iran somewhat

History did not start in 1979.you should have added the 1953 CIA engineered coup in iran against a democratic government to keep iranians under american hegemony.

My name is not Michele Bachman. I know that America broke relations with Iran in 1979
Be deepening, I mean going beyond backdoor channels like using intermediaries to talk to Iran. Both Rafsanjani and Khatami worked for that. Khatami (who was not even Khamenei's candidate) nearly succeeded but the Khobar bombing incident ruined it

Very funny!

So the iranians would be negotiating and then bomb who they are negotiating with.you choose to believe whatever accusations the US make.that's your choice.but the US accusation against hezbollah on the khobar bombing was not accepted.may be israel could have done it to strain whatever talks you're referring to between iran and the US.israel after all bombed the USS cole to bring US in confrontation with egypt.

If Saudis stopped pumping oil, US will without any doubt invade it. Pls we are not babies

Wow!
So you will worship the devil instead? So you see that the US is ruling saudi arabia and the al-saud are giving cover?

If the US invades saudi arabia,don't you think this will unite muslims? If they can't stay in iraq,then the US cannot stay in saudi arabia.invading is not the issue.would the US be able to maintain its occupation? I don't think so.

But this will give Iran an opportunity for Iran to move in! Love your recommendations. The way Khomeini played Shah Palavi was impressive by the way. One voice indeed. The way the peaceful protests turned very very violent as soon as Khomeini stepped into Iranian soil in 1979

A dumb genius!

How would iran move in

Played pahlavi? How many hundreds of thousands of iranians lost their lives? And where are you hallucinating this from? Ayatollah Khomeini returned to iran only after pahlavi had left.

You don't say. Very funny indeed. Assad's Syrian regime that is buying weapons from Russia and China is not tyrannical? Really? So the Syrians voted for Assad in a popular election to take over from his late father?
Sectarian agenda in Syria? What is the population of Sunnis in that country?
What is the population of the ruling Alawites?
And Iran does not have sectarian agenda?
You should assume sometimes that your contradictory statements and positions can be discerned by others


Please ask Russia and China and their democractic arms buyer - Syria
I have said it - Shias have too much in common with Christians!

I've explained earlier on syria wanting syrians (not outsiders) to decide.

You just talk blindly.Shia have too much in common with christians yet you support saudi subservience to the christian west for fear of the US invading saudi arabia.you even prefer the saudis cooperating with the christian west than Shia Islamic Iran.

Is this just blindness or you're just moved by emotions? Please think!

Whether home-based or imported, weapons increase tension and do kill. Until those guys have their own factories, asking them not buy create a monopoly. does it not?
Iran does not want to work together with anyone. Watch the 2nd video again!
Iran wants to throw out the "illegal occupants" of Saudi Arabia and control the oil field
Like a leader of HezboLlah said when they had to reluctantly release hostages on the instruction of Iran. "a rich country like Iran will always have its way with people like us". You can imagine how much the control of Saudi oil field will help further help Iran exercise such powers.
But think again, unless Iran has a pact with Russian trying to take over Saudi oil field in order to bring american economy to its knees will be worse than a pyrrhic victory

You're dreaming again.how will iran control saudi oil fields? It was saudi arabia that supported saddam's invasion of iran.it was saddam who wanted kuwaiti oil fields.I most often don't like to discuss politics especially on the middle east with emotional inclined people who know little because I'd be wasting my time if I try to correct info or notions.

You should ask yourself with western domination,if saudi arabia will ever be able to produce a bullet.iran have offered cooperation many times but the saudis refuse.they prefer to hide under america.why don't the saudis develop industries including the weapon industries and science and technology like iran has done instead of following america like a tail? The saudis got billions yet know nothing!

So who's to be blamed here? Weapons selling David or weapons buying muslim leaders? And why is felix calling David a terrorist? It's not him that's bombing fellow muslims in others sects. Always blaming others

victory101•:
So who's to be blamed here? Weapons selling David or weapons buying muslim leaders? And why is felix calling David a terrorist? It's not him that's bombing fellow muslims in others sects. Always blaming others

But Cameron is an accomplice in terrorism,right? At least syria is testimony to that.

LagosShia:

But Cameron is an accomplice in terrorism,right? At least syria is testimony to that.

Call those muslim leaders and muslims killing themselves in syria terrorists, then will talk. Lol

victory101•:

Call those muslim leaders and muslims killing themselves in syria terrorists, then will talk. Lol

Yes,many of them are terrorists.all those countries from saudi arabia to turkey sending in wahhabi/alqaeda terrorists into syria to topple the regime of a sovereign country are taking part in terrorism.

What you fail to see is the point that those who try to classify terrorism as something monopolized by muslim militants are wrong.the west in particular that likes giving lectures on freedom,democracy and human right is very much in the terror business from whichever angle you look at it-whether in selling weapons to tyrannical regimes in the middle east or sending terrorists and weapons into syria or supporting bin laden in afghanistan against the russians.

An American president selling weapons to Iran while Americans taken from its former embassy in Tehran were still being held by Iran does not make sense, no matter who is in power
At the time Saddam attacked Iran, the relationship between Saddam and the US was not good? They were not even talking directly. Any govt whose citizens are being held by another country will of course support anyone who is attacking the hostage takers. Does not mean they are allies. I am not an American to know that is what America would do

I have often asked what Nigeria was also doing in Lebanon under UNIFIL. I also wondered what the US while bombing the Christians who were killing muslims in Serbia. I still wonder why the US supports the ICC charging the murderer of muslims - Karadic - for war crime. But I never ask what Iran is doing anywhere outside Iran. That would be treason

LagosShia has interviewed the sunnis in Syria and knows their views. He believes that since Syrians are not on the streets, they should not change their government. Excellent.
Similarly the Saudis too are not on the streets. So? We should let the Saudis choose just like he wants the Syrians to choose

The Shia holy lands of Najaf and Qom are under some national governments. They are not administered by a commonwealth of anything or some united nations of muslims. That is fine by LagosShia. But Saudis must not have Makkah and Madinah in their custody

LagosShia believs that monarchy is wrong and should be abolished in Saudi Arabia but Assad can succeed his dad in Syria. That is ok

The videos posted shows that Shias do not want religious unity but political unity - ie subjugation

Being shown respect is important according to you. Nobody should live like a slave. Assad (a minority) giving freedom to all - including the majority - is the way to go. Who took the freedom in the first place?
Britain helped Saudi to assume power. No problem. But was it not the same Britain and French that virtually drew the map of the Middle East (including Syria) as we know it today? One is not acceptable, if true that is, but the other is acceptable. Whenever you accuse me of hypocrisy I just think of Christians!

Lagosshia says attack on Saudi Arabia will unite muslims. Yes like the US attack on Iraq did! Of course like in Iraq, Iran will benefit from the pounding of its enemies - the Saudi government. But Iran does not care about the lives of innocents that would be lost. And it might rally the Shias in Saudi on the pretense of resistance to secede or even make a play for power.
If history did not start in 1979 - though you were the one to first mention that date - did it start in 1953 when Mossedique was toppled by CIA agents? Why not take 480BC at Thermoplaye? When did history start?
If you don't agree that the Khobar bombing which the US blamed on Iran scuttled Khatami's plan for rapprochement with the US, you cannot blame me for that. Ask Khatami. And he is on tape on this matter. I never said the Iranians did it - but fact is that was what the Americans believed.

So what were the protesters doing when Pahlavi was there? Did they fight? No. they were waving flowers at the soldiers as peace offering. Good strategy that made it difficult to shoot them. But as soon as Pahlavi left and Khomeini came in, what did the security agents face? Deadly confrontation by the hitherto passive. All of these are on tape BTW.

On the whole you are in the habit of jumping to conclusions about what people support or believe. So I leave you to that

We have George Orwell's Animal Farm mindset on display with a political empire visions masquerading as a religious movement

Please, I have told you several times in the past. You can abuse and curse me as much as you want. It does not matter. But never EVER say this again! (either as a joke or whatever)

LagosShia:
So you will worship the devil instead?

LagosShia:

Yes,many of them are terrorists.all those countries from saudi arabia to turkey sending in wahhabi/alqaeda terrorists into syria to topple the regime of a sovereign country are taking part in terrorism.

What you fail to see is the point that those who try to classify terrorism as something monopolized by muslim militants are wrong.the west in particular that likes giving lectures on freedom,democracy and human right is very much in the terror business from whichever angle you look at it-whether in selling weapons to tyrannical regimes in the middle east or sending terrorists and weapons into syria or supporting bin laden in afghanistan against the russians.

Sellers of weapons to tyrannical regime - Britain (in this Report) and Russia and China to Syria. No?
Terrorists - suicide bombers everywhere including the Shia Hezbollah that carried out the Beirut suicide Bombing with the help of Iran as admitted to by the Iranian (Rafiqdoust) on tape in a documentary and when the same Hezbollah send rockets to civilian locations. Do you not agree
Oh, by the way. Khatami (on tape) in a CNN regretted hostage taking by Iran. So we see this an act of terror too. Neh?

BetaThings: An American president selling weapons to Iran while Americans taken from its former embassy in Tehran were still being held by Iran does not make sense, no matter who is in power
At the time Saddam attacked Iran, the relationship between Saddam and the US was not good? They were not even talking directly. Any govt whose citizens are being held by another country will of course support anyone who is attacking the hostage takers. Does not mean they are allies. I am not an American to know that is what America would do

America reaped in iran what it sowed.the pahlavi monarchy was too obedient.america was dealing with iran the way it deals with panama or puerto rico-like a banana republic.

The war saddam launched on iran and the chemical weapons he used were supplied by america.saddam was then very close to america before the invasion of kuwait.saddam used different covers to justify his war against iran.but clearly saddam was instigated.to get rid of the islamic revolution in iran which threatened all the dictators of the middle east was the aim.

I have often asked what Nigeria was also doing in Lebanon under UNIFIL. I also wondered what the US while bombing the Christians who were killing muslims in Serbia. I still wonder why the US supports the ICC charging the murderer of muslims - Karadic - for war crime. But I never ask what Iran is doing anywhere outside Iran. That would be treason

You dishonesty disguised as ignorance is disgusting.if you don't know learn.such cheap lies wouldn't go unexposed.

UNIFIL in lebanon serves in the south of lebanon bordering israel as united nations peace keepers.what were the american and french marines doing in beirut.not in south lebanon.please get your facts straight.the US military presence in lebanon was no peace keeping job like nigeria does with blue UN helmets.their presence in lebanon was similar to their presence in somalia where the US had to withdraw also.but I guess its good to you as to the humiliation the US faced in somalia,but not satisfying what happened in lebanon to occupation soldiers because it was Shia militants who made the US and french armies run out of lebanon.

The point is no matter how powerful any country is,do not invade and try to occupy another country.its not justified.

LagosShia has interviewed the sunnis in Syria and knows their views. He believes that since Syrians are not on the streets, they should not change their government. Excellent.
Similarly the Saudis too are not on the streets. So? We should let the Saudis choose just like he wants the Syrians to choose

Have you interviewed syrians yourself? No! Then on what grounds other than western-zionist propaganda against assad and wahhabi fanaticism you're drawing your conclusions?

Syrians in fact have taken to the streets several times and each time more than a million.they went to the streets in solidarity with their president the zionists influenced and wahhabi governments around the world are trying to topple by sending in wahhabi terrorists from other muslim countries.

You got to learn something about syria.the outsiders got to leave syria alone.saudi arabia and turkey should send the wahhabi fighters from across the muslim world into palestine.have you not wondered why the saudi hypocrites have never thought of sending wahhabi fighters to free palestine? You can do the thinking yourself and tell us why!

The Shia holy lands of Najaf and Qom are under some national governments. They are not administered by a commonwealth of anything or some united nations of muslims. That is fine by LagosShia. But Saudis must not have Makkah and Madinah in their custody

The holy places in both Qom and Najaf are not administered by any government.they are administered by the hawza.it is not the iraqi government that chooses who presides in najaf or who takes care of the Imam Ali (as) Mosque.it is the religious seminary.let them do the same in Makkah and Medina.the saudis should stop naming places within or close to the haram in makkah and medina after members of the royal family.the land of Allah (swt) doesn't belong to a royal family.instead of seeing the obvious you're blinded by sentiments.I wonder how people like you feel about themselves and the crooked ways they apply.don't you have a conscience? No feeling of guilty for dribbling from the truth to only be caught?

Besides,Makkah and Medina are for muslims of all schools of thought.why are the saudis exercising control and using the holiest places in islam to impose wahhabism as the prevalent school in those places? The saudi government gets to approve who is the imam of masjid al-haram for instance.is that how things should be? Obviously you don't mind corrupt and moral rotten royals exercising control over the holiest of holy just because they're inclined to your own thinking/ideas.

Lagosis Shia believs that monarchy is wrong and should be abolished in Saudi Arabia but Assad can succeed his dad in Syria. That is ok

Don't lie here because this is not what I said I believe.don't put words into my mouth.

At least in syria for bashar to succeed his father,the syrian parliament had to amend the constitution to accomodate his age back then.there are still influential government institutions in syria that implement some sort of a system.syria was a one party state until recently when bashar al-assad approved a multi-party system in the new constitution.yet still,allow syrians to change their regime if that's what they want.it is not the job of alqaeda terrorists sent in by the CIA and the wahhabi authoritarian states like saudi arabia to take "democracy" into syria or implement a so called revolution.let the syrian people stand up for their right against bashar if it is that much the syrians hate him as outsiders do.the iranians have done it against the shah and egyptians too against mubarak.why can't syrians do it if they want that?

In every country there is opposition to the president.but is that opposition enough to result in regime change? Is it right for the outside countries to use any amount of opposition in syria to further their interests and impose a revolution from outside syria?

The videos posted shows that Shias do not want religious unity but political unity - ie subjugation

Religious unity is not possible because we are not going to follow your beliefs and you too will not follow ours.why are you deceiving yourself? But at least as muslims we can rally our common points and form a strong base in favor of our mutual interests and against the shared enemies of Islam who gave palestine to the zionists and the wahhabi saudis are forming alliance with.

Being shown respect is important according to you. Nobody should live like a slave. Assad (a minority) giving freedom to all - including the majority - is the way to go. Who took the freedom in the first place?
Britain helped Saudi to assume power. No problem. But was it not the same Britain and French that virtually drew the map of the Middle East (including Syria) as we know it today? One is not acceptable, if true that is, but the other is acceptable. Whenever you accuse me of hypocrisy I just think of Christians!

Syria gained nothing by the map british and french colonialism drew.in fact syria lost because both lebanon and palestine were part of "Greater Syria" or "Biladush-Sham".on the other hand,present day saudi arabia was made up of several geo-political entities with rival tribes that the al-saud with british support defeated and imposed their rule upon.for instance the eastern province with a Shia majority was a separate entity from Najd, and the area of Makkah and Medina-both Makkah and Medina were ruled by a "sharif".

Lagosshia says attack on Saudi Arabia will unite muslims. Yes like the US attack on Iraq did! Of course like in Iraq, Iran will benefit from the pounding of its enemies - the Saudi government. But Iran does not care about the lives of innocents that would be lost. And it might rally the Shias in Saudi on the pretense of resistance to secede or even make a play for power.

Iraq is a clear-cut Shia majority country.iran only strengthened its role through the aspirations of iraqis who like iranians are mostly Shia.

It was saudi arabia that was sending in terrorists to blow Shia holy places up that doesn't care about human life.wahhabism and humanity are two opposite terms.have you forgotten abu musab al-zarqawi? What of the blowing of the Askariyya shrine in samarra? Presently there are a number of saudi citizens held in iraq and due to be executed on terrorism charges.and it is causing a row between iraq and saudi arabia.I just read that a week ago.

The majority Shia and oil rich eastern province of saudi arabia was annexed by the al-sauds.the inhabitants of the eastern region indigenous to that land have every right to decide their fate and secede if they wish so.

It is amazing how you think.it is better to you for the saudi to ally themselves with the "crusader" armies of the west than to come closer to Shia who are muslims.your hatred is definitely not for Islam or its cause.

If history did not start in 1979 - though you were the one to first mention that date - did it start in 1953 when Mossedique was toppled by CIA agents? Why not take 480BC at Thermoplaye? When did history start?

To whatever date you can conjure relevant to our discussion and in context with historical events we are discussing.

If you don't agree that the Khobar bombing which the US blamed on Iran scuttled Khatami's plan for rapprochement with the US, you cannot blame me for that. Ask Khatami. And he is on tape on this matter. I never said the Iranians did it - but fact is that was what the Americans believed.

That's their problem.

So what were the protesters doing when Pahlavi was there? Did they fight? No. they were waving flowers at the soldiers as peace offering. Good strategy that made it difficult to shoot them. But as soon as Pahlavi left and Khomeini came in, what did the security agents face? Deadly confrontation by the hitherto passive. All of these are on tape BTW.

Soldiers or any security forces who would shoot at civilian waving flowers,deserve to be punished.in egypt the army did not take the side of mubarak by shooting peaceful protesters.the army only have the right to shoot if they are shot at.you can't oppress people and then when you lose power expect no payback.

On the whole you are in the habit of jumping to conclusions about what people support or believe. So I leave you to that

We have George Orwell's Animal Farm mindset on display with a political empire visions masquerading as a religious movement

Please, I have told you several times in the past. You can abuse and curse me as much as you want. It does not matter. But never EVER say this again! (either as a joke or whatever)

Whatever!

BetaThings:
Sellers of weapons to tyrannical regime - Britain (in this Report) and Russia and China to Syria. No?

Syria is fighting within syria the wahhabi/alqaeda terrorists sent in by saudi arabia and supported by britain.syria deserves to buy weapons to crush those wahhabi enemies of humanity.

Terrorists - suicide bombers everywhere including the Shia Hezbollah that carried out the Beirut suicide Bombing with the help of Iran as admitted to by the Iranian (Rafiqdoust) on tape in a documentary and when the same Hezbollah send rockets to civilian locations. Do you not agree
Oh, by the way. Khatami (on tape) in a CNN regretted hostage taking by Iran. So we see this an act of terror too. Neh?

Your spiteful attempt to link hezbollah to terrorism is laughable.in another thread you even compared hezbollah to boko haram.you must be serious high on something very repulsive.

-hezbollah has openly a leadership structure,boko haram does not.

-hezbollah officially represents the lebanese people in parliaments with elected MPs in lebanese elections and with ministers in the lebanese government.till boko haram have members in the national assembly or senate in abuja,I'd like you to tell us what is sending you high.

-hezbollah has resisted foreign armies that have invaded lebanon.they are fighting for their land.which country is boko haram fighting?

-hezbollah target israeli armies and not civilians.hezbollah shoots rockets into israel because israel bombs lebanese civilians.as the Quran puts it "fight them the way they fight you".every israeli citizen in palestine is an occupier/settler or supporting the theft of palestinian land and therefore not as innocent as you want us to believe.on the other hand,boko haram target nigerian civilians.

-hezbollah is allied to the largest christian bloc in the lebanese parliament and sunni and druze factions.boko haram bombs churches and wants to impose wahhabism aka salafism on everyone under the pretense of "sharia law".

-even the European Union have refused israeli and american lobbying to brand hezbollah a "terrorist group" taking to the fact that hezbollah has a political wing with legitimation representation of lebanese Shia Muslims,who make up the largest single religious community in lebanon.the EU refused to include hezbollah in the EU list of terrorist organizations.EU officials meet with hezbollah officials.yet this Nigerian wahhabi fanatic who considers himself a muslim is repeating the israeli/american rant and propaganda calling a muslim group fighting to free its land and people from israeli occupation "a terrorist group".if this is not supporting the enemies of islam,what is?

And this same wahhabi fanatic totally ignores the below perpetuated against civilians-boko haram style of religious persecution-by wahhabi aka salafist terrorists.it is so obvious the americans are not interested in fighting terrorism and the same with their saudi dogs.In fact the terrorism saudi arabia sponsors in pakistan and elsewhere to target Shia worshippers and all the killings of groups like boko haram against innocent christian worshippers in churches,works to the advantage of the US and israeli propaganda.they use these senseless killings by wahhabis aka salafists to tarnish the image of muslim freedom fighters who have legitimate cause like fighting israeli occupation and land theft.the arab christians long knew the US is only after the benefit of israel and not in support of christians.and that is why you see in lebanon the christians allying with hezbollah.

Now it is left for BokoThings aka BetaThings to see the below and know what is really "terrorism" and to condemn his role models he cheers for (note: BetaThings' saudi arabia sponsors the takfiri groups committing genocide against Shia civilians):

"A Timeline Of Sectarian Terrorism Against Shia Muslims - Islam for Muslims"

https://www.nairaland.com/961495/timeline-sectarian-terrorism-against-shia

As for Khatami,he is a gentleman who regrets any tension.but does america regret its zionist policies in iran which has caused suffering for iranians? America only regrets when its drones massacre civilians in deliberate and repeated cases in pakistan,afghanistan and yemen.

Waste of time debaing with you. Let the handiwork of your brothers speak


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5tJ9BJlldY


Assad is fighting in his country but Saudi is sending terrorists? Really? Unless HezboLlah are now Syrians having Lebanese citizenship



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXgfA6CkyMA

I cannot see how you seek co-operation with "dogs and tyrants"

LagosShia:
saudi dogs

LagosShia:
politics must show regards for muslim populations and not for the tyrants

Now the heart of your desire - bring more land land under Iranian "supervision" and "tithe" collection

LagosShia:
The majority Shia and oil rich eastern province of saudi arabia was annexed by the al-sauds.the inhabitants of the eastern region indigenous to that land have every right to decide their fate and secede if they wish so.

BetaThings: Waste of time debaing with you. Let the handiwork of your brothers speak

I want you to see the truth and have the courage to accept it.

Assad is fighting in his country but Saudi is sending terrorists? Really? Unless HezboLlah are now Syrians having Lebanese citizenship

Hezbollah in the mouth of its leader himself have denied they have taken any part in the war in Syria yet.he further clarified that there are Shia villages on both sides of the lebanon-syria border and those Shia villagers have taken arms to defend themselves and their property from attacks by the Free Syrian Army terrorists who are fighting the government forces and the syrian national army.it is ridiculous that every lebanese/syrian Shia with a weapon must be a hezbollah fighter.besides,the lies and fabricated videos coming out of syria makes the FSA look real bad.

Assad is officially still the head of state of a sovereign country called syria.for any foreign military presence to be legitimate and acceptable in any country the head of state must approve it.and even if we assume hezbollah is helping the syrian national army and supporting assad,that is very much legitimate.saudi arabia have no business sending in terrorists and weapons into another sovereign country to topple its leader.that is foreign interference.

The same saudi arabia has sent in troops into bahrain at the request of the king of bahrain to suppress the peaceful revolution in bahrain.while that is within the approval of the bahraini head of state,it is however ironic how authoritarian saudi arabia is sponsoring terrorists in syria to take "democracy" there while it suppresses peaceful protesters in bahrain who want their democratic rights.

It is so clear that saudi wahhabis are not after allowing the people in syria and bahrain to decide by themselves but they want to oppress other nations just the way the al saud regime is oppressing its own people.

I cannot see how you seek co-operation with "dogs and tyrants"

They have turned themselves into those.it is only our wish they change before its too late.

BetaThings: Now the heart of your desire - bring more land land under Iranian "supervision" and "tithe" collection

LMAO!

Keep supporting wahhabi aka salafist oppression.I wonder how you read the Quran and the stories of the oppressive pharoah against Moses (as)!

So the Shia populations around the world have no right to decide their own fate and the wahhabis aka salafists must "supervise" them to ward off iranian "supervision"?

Those who can afford it among the Shia have a thousand and one ways of giving khums to the scholars (marji) of their choice whether the marji or his representative be in iran,USA,iraq or nigeria.this has nothing to do with iran officially as a state.don't get too desperate because you'd become more ridiculous.

Freedom of the Minority in Syria. Really?

Sunnis don't have a Mosque in Tehran. They are not Allowed to Pray Eid

http://english.sunnionline.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3640:tehran-ban-on-sunnis-own-eid-al-adha-prayers&catid=58:Ahl-al-Sunna-In-Iran&Itemid=198

Tehran: Ban on Sunnis’ own Eid al-Adha prayers
Wednesday, 31 October 2012 14:58
Iran, Tehran- The Security Police of Tehran have banned Sunni Muslims in Tehran to establish Eid al-Adha prayers blocking some famous prayer rooms of them in the capital.

“SunniOnline” has received some credible reports that the security forces had put obstacles on the ways of the central worship rooms of Sunnis including prayer rooms in Sadeqiyeh and Saa’dat-abad. It was Friday, the day of Eid al-Adha, the most important Muslim holyday, when Sunni Muslims tried to offer Eid al-Adha prayers.

A Tehran based Sunni web portal, Eslah, reported hundreds of Sunni worshippers were on their way towards the prayer room in “Sadeqiyeh” as scheduled time, but the police put impediments halting Muslims to establish Eid prayers.

It is the first time Tehran’s Sunnis have been banned to have own Eid al-Adha gathering and prayers. They had been stopped to establish Eid al-Fitr prayers for three successive years.

The Sunni community of the Iranian capital, Tehran, has been forbidden to build own mosque in the city. Tehran’s Sunnis offer congregational prayers inside leased houses.

After the ban on Eid prayers, Sunni worshippers of Tehran offered prayers in some other houses covertly.

BetaThings: Freedom of the Minority in Syria. Really?

Sunnis don't have a Mosque in Tehran. They are not Allowed to Pray Eid

http://english.sunnionline.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3640:tehran-ban-on-sunnis-own-eid-al-adha-prayers&catid=58:Ahl-al-Sunna-In-Iran&Itemid=198

Tehran: Ban on Sunnis’ own Eid al-Adha prayers
Wednesday, 31 October 2012 14:58
Iran, Tehran- The Security Police of Tehran have banned Sunni Muslims in Tehran to establish Eid al-Adha prayers blocking some famous prayer rooms of them in the capital.

“SunniOnline” has received some credible reports that the security forces had put obstacles on the ways of the central worship rooms of Sunnis including prayer rooms in Sadeqiyeh and Saa’dat-abad. It was Friday, the day of Eid al-Adha, the most important Muslim holyday, when Sunni Muslims tried to offer Eid al-Adha prayers.

A Tehran based Sunni web portal, Eslah, reported hundreds of Sunni worshippers were on their way towards the prayer room in “Sadeqiyeh” as scheduled time, but the police put impediments halting Muslims to establish Eid prayers.

It is the first time Tehran’s Sunnis have been banned to have own Eid al-Adha gathering and prayers. They had been stopped to establish Eid al-Fitr prayers for three successive years.

The Sunni community of the Iranian capital, Tehran, has been forbidden to build own mosque in the city. Tehran’s Sunnis offer congregational prayers inside leased houses.

After the ban on Eid prayers, Sunni worshippers of Tehran offered prayers in some other houses covertly.

The above Sunni fanaticism just proves you don't think before posting.you go out there to search for nonsense and come here to regurgitate.

The above have been refuted.in order to promote unity,in Iran as in Islam a "masjid" is neither Sunni nor Shia.it is a place of prostration and for the worship of Allah (swt) by all muslims.the iranian policy is to have a Shia imam (prayer leader) in mosque where the area is predominantly or majority Shia.also to have a Sunni imam (prayer leader) in mosques where the area is majority Sunni.there are areas in Iran where the Sunnis who form less than 10% of the country's total population lead in the mosques and the Shia in those areas (where sunnis form a majority) do not complain they are "not allowed" to have "their own mosque".all muslims pray together in the same mosque.if someone doesn't want to pray behind a Shia or Sunni prayer leader,that person can avoid the congregational prayers led by the prayer leader of either of the two sides.

Now compare the situation of mosques in saudi arabia.in the eastern region,where the Shia form a majority,the wahhabi saudi government still appoint Sunni imams in all the mosques.

LagosShia:

The above Sunni fanaticism just proves you don't think before posting.you go out there to search for nonsense and come here to regurgitate.

The above have been refuted.[b]in order to promote unity in Iran as in Islam a "masjid" is neither Sunni nor Shia[b].it is a place of prostration and for the worship of Allah (swt) by all muslims

Refutation by who?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/iran-forbids-sunni-eid-prayers

"Other religious minorities in Iran have been facing restrictions. Seven leaders of the Bahá'í community are serving 20-year jail sentences. Bahá'ís in Iran are deprived of rights such as education or owning businesses and are often persecuted for their beliefs."

' Almost all administrative or employment forms contain the question, “Are you Sunni or Shiite?”'

I don't think? Oh, Ok (you know you have said I don't have a brain, please be patient). But do you remember or is it that you don't give a damn?


I am thoroughly confused! Iranian government demolish Sunni mosques (like Boko Haram demolish churches) because Iran want religious unity amongst "muslims" (it cannot be otherwise since there are churches in Tehran). Yet LagosShia had previously convinced me that it is not possible to attain religious unity

LagosShia:

Religious unity is not possible because we are not going to follow your beliefs and you too will not follow ours.why are you deceiving yourself? But at least as muslims we can rally our common points and form a strong base in favor of our mutual interests and against the shared enemies of Islam who gave palestine to the zionists and the wahhabi saudis are forming alliance with.

LagosShia:
.the iranian policy is to have a Shia imam (prayer leader) in mosque where the area is predominantly or majority Shia.also to have a Sunni imam (prayer leader) in mosques where the area is majority Sunni.there are areas in Iran where the Sunnis who form less than 10% of the country's total population lead in the mosques and the Shia in those areas (where sunnis form a majority) do not complain they are "not allowed" to have "their own mosque".all muslims pray together in the same mosque.if someone doesn't want to pray behind a Shia or Sunni prayer leader,that person can avoid the congregational prayers led by the prayer leader of either of the two sides.

A muslim should avoid congregational prayer enjoined by Allah? SunhanALlah!


[i]Religious courses given in schools in predominantly Sunni regions teach Shiite beliefs. Little information is given about Sunnism.
Several years ago, a political decision was made to introduce a Shiite representative of the spiritual leader (Wilayat-e Faqih or Guardianship of the Jurist) to religious madrasas belonging to Sunnis. This representative enjoys extraordinary power and authority. He can appoint or remove from office anyone at will. The practice, opposed by Sunnis for the time being, enables Shiite beliefs to be taught in these madrasas.
Every year, the “Week of Union” is marked in Iran to promote rapprochement between Shiites and Sunnis. But this is just a slogan, and this activity is intended to lure Sunnis into Shiism. So their message is, “Come and join us so that Islam becomes united.”[/i]

LagosShia:
Now compare the situation of mosques in saudi arabia.in the eastern region,where the Shia form a majority,the wahhabi saudi government still appoint Sunni imams in all the mosques

If Saudi does wrong, we should point it out. No need to use that to justify inequity

⁠
Lies that there are NO Sunni Mosques in Iran/Tehran

They are even worse than Jews in their lies and  propaganda. For example, watch the following video of Nasibi Mullah.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXCJtMnA88Y

His is accusing that:

 .1There is NO Ahle-Sunnah Mosque in Iran/Tehran.

 .2This Mulla is telling a lie that there are even seats for Jews & Christians in Iranian Parliament but no seats for Ahle-Sunnah.

 .3Iranian Baluchs are not having good jobs in Iran

Let us begin with Allah's name and show the reality of Iran and expose the lies of these Nasibi Kadhaab Mullahs. Insha-Allah.

Mosques are neither Shias nor Sunnies, but they are only House of Allah

There is great stress upon Shia/Sunni Unity in Iran and Imam Khomeini was biggest supporter for this unity.

1. The Constitution of Iran and Imam Khomeini was very clear that labeling Mosques as Shia or Sunni is division of Muslim Unity. It is a curse to say this is Shia Mosque or this is Sunni Mosque. Nay, all Mosques are only and only for Allah.

2. Iranian Law says:

If there is an Area where majority is of SHIAs, then Sunni are asked to pray behind Shia Imam.
While Areas, where there is Sunni Majority, there Shias are also asked to go in that same Sunni Mosque and pray behind the Sunni Imam and they are not allowed to open up their any Separate Mosque.

There may be few deviations to this RULE, but in 80-90% this rules is practiced in it's sprit and indeed Shias are compelled to pray behind Sunni Imams.
Even Ayatullah Khaminei and all Shia Mujtahids themselves prayed several times behind Sunni Imams and that without any problem.

Please note, you could not compare the Situation of Iran to Saudia. The Saudies are hypocrites. There is neither any Shia Mosque in Mecca and Madina and many other cities of Saudia, but also no Salafies in Shia Areas are not asked to pray behind Shia Imams, but they deal Saudi Shias as dirty creatures. Still these dirty Nasibi Mullas raise not a single voice upon this worst behaviour of Saudi regime against Shias.

Situation of Mosques in Pakistan

On every Road of Pakistan, you will find at least 3-4 Mosques.
1st Mosque belongs to Ahlehadith. Ten meters away there is another mosque and it belongs to Deobandies. Another 25 meters away there is another mosque of Barailwi Muslims. And another 10 meters away there is a Shia mosque.

Is it really good to have 3-4 different Mosques (the Hauses of Allah) at every road? Does it really leads towards Muslim unity?

And worst scence is present in Europe, where in Hamburg (Germany) there are 3 Different Mosques in one same Building. The Christians laugh at it.

IRAN: There are 10000 Ahle Sunnah Mosques in Iran where Sunni Imams lead the Prayer

The Fasiq Fitna mongers keep on coming with every type of false accusations in order to incite hatred among the Muslim Ummah. While Allah (swt) says to esquire if any Fasiq brings you a news. The reality is:

 .1There are totally 70000 Mosques in Iran.

 .2While 10000 of them are from Ahle-Sunnah Brothers and Sunni Imams lead their the prayers.

 .3This means, for every 500 Sunnies there is one Mosque in Iran, while for 1100 Shias there is only one mosque.

Iranian Law states, there is no Shia Mosque or Sunni Mosque, but all Mosques are Houses of Allah. The areas where Sunnies are in majority, there Shias are not allowed to make their separate mosques, but to go and pray behind the Sunni Imam and vice versa. It may be in some areas there is corruption and deviation from this Rule, but where in world things are 100% corruption free? In general Shias have absolutely no Problems in praying behind Sunni Imams in Iran and Vice Versa.
Here is the Complete Article (LINK):

مسلمانان ایران 7 درصد اهل سنت را کسر کنیم ،کل جمعیت شیعه بالغ ب
چهارشنبه ۲۱ اسفند ۱۳۸۷ ساعت ۱۲:۲۳

شیعیان ایران کمترین عبادتگاه را برای زیارت و برگزاری نمازو فرائض دینی در مقایسه با اهل سنت و اقلیت های مذهبی دارند.

به گزارش سرویس اجتماعی جهان نیوز ، نزدیک به 70 هزار مسجد در کشور وجود دارد که از این میزان 60هزار مسجد متعلق به شیعیان و 10 هزار مسجد نیز برای اهل سنت است.

این در حالی است که بنا بر گزارش های رسمی در مورد جمعیت کشور از 72 میلیون نفر ایرانی بیش از 99 درصد مسلمان و 7 درصد آنها نیز از اهل سنت هستند. بر این اساس نزدیک به 5 میلیون سنی در کشور وجود دارد که دارای 10 هزار مسجد هستند و به این ترتیب بطور متوسط برای هر 500 سنی یک مسجد ساخته شده است.

در همین حال اگر از جمعیت مسلمانان ایران 7 درصد اهل سنت را کسر کنیم ،کل جمعیت شیعه بالغ بر 66 میلیون نفر خواهد بود که بطور متوسط برای هر1100 شیعه یک مسجد وجود خواهد داشت.

این در حالی است که مطابق آمار غیر رسمی نزدیک به 40 درصد مساجد شیعیان بدون روحانی و امام جماعت است و بیش از نیمی از این مساجد به بازسازی اساسی نیاز دارد .

از طرفی جمعیت ارامنه کشور قریب به 150 هزار نفر است که دارای 300 کلیسا هستند که به این ترتیب برای هر 500 ارمنی یک کلیسا وجود دارد .

به نظر می رسد مسئولین فرهنگی کشور بایستی اهتمام جدی تری نسبت به ساخت مسجد و نگهداری آن در مناطق شیعه نشین کشور بالاخص مناطق محروم داشته باشند چراکه بی توجهی نسبت به آن می تواند آثار زیانباری داشته باشد.

Hopefully after that these hate inciting lies of Fasiq people come to an end. Insha-Allah.
Even in the mosque here (in Europe) where I go along with my family, is an Iranian One and half of the people are AhleSunnah who are praying with us (even among women). Contrary to Pakistan, here whole families including women come to the mosque and pray behind the men. Our Iranian Imam often fly to Iran or to other cities of Europe and 2nd Imam is a Sunni Brother who even leads us often in Jummah prayers. We have excellent relations with Sunni Families here and have absolutely no problem which I see all over the net.

 
Witness: Iranian Shias have excellent Relationship with Iranian Sunni brothers and think favrourablly about them

On Issue of Shia/Sunni in Iran, the survey of PCO (Center for Public Opinion(America)) says [LINK]:

Iranian Shiite Muslims Think Favorably of Sunni Muslims, Christians, Americans and others .
... For Iranian citizens of the Islamic Republic, 87 percent of who in our survey identified themselves as Shiite, views of both Sunni Muslims and Christians were overwhelmingly favorable—with only 8 percent voicing an unfavorable view of Sunnis and 11 percent of Christians. (Opinions on Jews were divided, though more are favorable than unfavorable.)
Indeed, Iranian views of Sunnis and Christians, as well as non-Iranians generally, are quite accepting—more so than the corresponding views of their neighbors, such as in Saudi Arabia, according to our TFT survey there.
Iranians clearly distinguish between countries and policies they do not like (US and Israel), and people they do like (Christians, Americans, Arabs, Sunni Muslims and Jews). Iranians are favorable to Christians by a 6:1 margin, Sunni Muslims by a 9:1 margin, Americans by a 2:1 margin and Jews by a 5:4 margin. In fact, Iranians are as favorable to Americans as they are to their Arab neighbors. The high favorability of Sunni Muslims among Iranians (higher than for Arabs generally) demonstrates that Shiite/Sunni issues are not the primary force driving a wedge between Iranians and their Arab neighbors.

So, Iranian Shias absolutely don't hate their Sunni brothers, and the only creatures who are filled with hatred and lies are these Nasibi Mullas.

Iranian Constitution about Islam and Different Fiqhs

Article 11 [Unity of Islam Principle]

In accordance with the sacred verse of the Koran "This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me" [21:92], all Muslims form a single nation, and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran have the duty of formulating its general policies with a view to cultivating the friendship and unity of all Muslim peoples, and it must constantly strive to bring about the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world.

Article 12 [Official Religion]

The official religion of Iran is Islam and the (official Fiqh is) Twelver Ja'fari school, and this principle will remain eternally immutable. Other Islamic schools are to be accorded full respect, and their followers are free to act in accordance with their own jurisprudence in performing their religious rites. These schools enjoy official status in matters pertaining to religious education, affairs of personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and wills) and related litigation in courts of law. In regions of the country where Muslims following any one of these schools constitute the majority, local regulations, within the bounds of the jurisdiction of local councils, are to be in accordance with the respective school, without infringing upon the rights of the followers of other schools.

The Article 11 is about ISLAM.

The 4 Fiqhs of Ahle-Sunnah (known as Madahib-e-Arb'a مذاہب اربعہ) are also officially recognized in Iran along with Shia Fiqh.

This Article 12 is about the Official Religious Laws of state, based upon Fiqh-e-Jaffaria, but only in those Areas where Shias are in Majority.

But Areas, where Ahle Sunnah are in Majority, then the Official Religious Laws of that area will be based upon the Juriprudence of Ahle Sunnah school of thought and Shia Minority has to follow those Ahle Sunnah Laws. This is the case in Seestan Baluchistan where majority is of Ahle Sunnah Community and Shia Minorties should follow their laws in those Areas.

Also there are Videos of Ahle Sunnah Mosques in Iran where they are praying and Shia minorities also praying behind them.

There is a big Ahle Sunnah Dar-ul-Uloom in Seestan run by Ahle Sunnah Authorities, known as "Jamia Dar-ul-Uloom wa al-Jam'e al-Maki" in the city of Zahidan (Iran). Here is the Link to their Official Website.
Mufti Taqi Uthmani (the head of Deobandies in Pakistan) visited Iran and gave lecture there. Here is the Video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YLW9O4jIfM

This again shows there is absolutely no problem in Iran among Shia and Sunnies as falsly propagated by Nasibi Mullahs.

In Iran (cities), the Ahle Sunnah people are one of the finest people I have met. They are very friendly and I myself know some of them personally due to Mosque and we have excellent relations and our families are visiting each other (now my family has moved to another city and we don't have much of contact, but still I can assure you there are absolutely no problems and we do love and respect each other).

Egypt’s Al-Azhar Ahle-Sunnah University to open new college in Iran

All 4 Ahle Sunnah Fiqhs are recognised in Iran. The Iranian Government has introduced all these 4 Ahle Sunnah Fiqh (along with Jaffari Fiqh) in the Universities. It is possible to do your PHD in any Sunni Fiqh in Iranian Universities.

Moreover, Iranian Government has also invited the Egyptian Al-Azahr University to open a branch of their University in Tehran City (Those who do false hatred propaganda there is no Sunni Mosque in Tehran, they must read this news carefully and do TAWBA for propagating their hatred filled lies)
(Link: Tehran Times)

TEHRAN (FNA)- Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, one of Muslim’s most prestigious institution, is considering opening a branch in Iran.

“Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi, who heads Al-Azhar University has positively welcomed the request from the Iranian authorities to open a branch of his institute in Tehran and is said to be evaluating the proposal,” said a source within the management of the university to the London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper.

Tantawi received a request from authorities in Tehran to open an institute linked to Al-Azhar to teach Sunni doctrine in the Iranian capital.

“An Iranian delegation led by head of Iran’s interest section in Cairo Seyed Hossein Rajabi visited the Sheikh (Tantawi) at Al-Azhar three days ago,” said the source.

“Together they agreed on the necessity to bring the experience of the teachings at Al-Azhar to Iran, to promote cultural cooperation and exchange of professors from religious universities between Cairo and Tehran.”

The source said that Tantawi has agreed to consider opening a branch of the university in Tehran.

Nasibi Mullah's lie that there are NO Sunni Members in the Iranian Parliament

In the very first Video, the Nasibi Mullah told a lie that there are seats of Jews and Christians in the Parliament, but no seats for Ahle Sunnah in the Parliament.
These Mullahs are lying and doing false propaganda.
Here is the Link to the BBC website news (Note: BBC is very hostile to Islamic Iran). But this BBC is confirming there are 18 Sunni MPs in the Iranian Parliament. 
What do you say about this lie of these Mullahs?
Jews and Christians got these seats while they are minorities, while Sunni brothers are not considered as Minority but as our Muslim brothers in Iran. There may be small problems, but where on earth every thing is 100% ideal?

Accusation that Iranian Baluchs (mostly Sunnies) don't have good jobs

There is indeed a problem that Iranian Baluchs (who are mostly Ahle-Sunnah) are not having good jobs in Iran. But it has not so much to do with their being Sunnies, but it is due to the reason while competition in Iran is very very high and it is difficult for Iranian Baluchs to compete with others for the jobs. The Baluch Culture is still old one and although educational facilities are there, but many Baluch Students are not going to universities. And those who are in universities, a big number of them are not completing their education. (Note: These Educational Facilities in Iran's Baluchistan are much better than ones in Pakistan's Baluchistan)
Although things are changing now. But it will still take time.

Conclusion:

Quran asks us if any Fasiq brings a news to us, then we have to verify it. This will make it sure that these Nasibies don't succeed in their evil plot of dividing the Unity of Muslim Ummah. Insha-Allah.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqSGxfjtkhI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kJrkeasX0o&feature=related

Courtesy:

http://www.wilayat.net/index.php/en/propagandas/48-present-century-propagandas/181-lies-that-there-are-no-sunni-mosques-in-iran-tehran

BetaThings:

Refutation by who?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/iran-forbids-sunni-eid-prayers

Please read the above refutation I just posted.

And it is very unethical and un-islamic for someone who considers himself a muslim to use the zionist media of the west to target his fellow muslims.nonetheless,the lies that you copied are refuted in the above even using western sources.

I don't think? Oh, Ok (you know you have said I don't have a brain, please be patient). But do you remember or is it that you don't give a damn?

The bahai group in Iran is outlawed officially and that is iranian law.in some european countries you find the jehovah's witnesses are banned,in both cases for different reasons.the bahai group it is more for political reasons just like the nazis are banned in europe for instance.the jehovah's witnesses in some countries are banned for what authorities may see as "inciting materials".

As for asking in iran whether you're sunni or shia,in nigeria here when I wanted to register my sim card,on the form questionnaire religious identity is asked.on you work CV you state your religion.however there is no discrimination that sunnis face in iran.from the refutation I posted in my above post,it is evident that the Baluch ethnic group which is mostly sunnis find it difficult to get jobs because of their refusal to get educated,something that reminds us of the illitracy in northern nigeria and the hausas.sunnis should open up to education.obviously the racial discrimination that Umar,the second sunni caliph dealt with the persians for being "ajam" (non arab) no longer exist in iran.in fact the affinity of the persians to Shiism and the Ahlul-Bayt (as) instead of sunnism and the sahaba is motivated by Umar's and also Muawiya's treatment of non-arabs.Umar himself was killed by his persian slave, after his reluctance to implement islamic teachings of non-racial discrimination among muslims of different racial backgrounds.

I am thoroughly confused! Iranian government demolish Sunni mosques (like Boko Haram demolish churches) because Iran want religious unity amongst "muslims" (it cannot be otherwise since there are churches in Tehran). Yet LagosShia had previously convinced me that it is not possible to attain religious unity

More propaganda and you think you're doing Sunnism a favor? Or you think I will perceive you as someone who fears God? You're comparing the iranian government to boko haram.are you not mentally unbalanced? Even if I'm to assume the iranian government demolishes "sunni mosques",boko haram doesn't attack churches with the aim of only bringing down the structure but to kill lives.how many sunnis have died due to demolition of their mosques in iran? Please you just can't bring the Shia (at least officially) to the level of all Sunnis generally,be they wahhabi/salafist oriented or not.at least Allah (swt) has blessed the Shia with better morals and standards as a manifestation of true Islam.only one very big country in the muslim world (iran) is Shia majority and see the impact Iran is making (in a short period of 33 years with an islamic government and in spite of all foreign threats and embargo).imagine if pakistan,egypt,indonesia,saudi arabia and even nigeria are Shia majority?! you can see from the refutation I presented earlier that there are 10,000 mosques in iran where Sunnis lead prayer.there are churches in tehran because christians do not pray in masjid (mosque) as sunnis do.or do you want iran to oppress its indigenous christian minority by even not allowing them a place of worship? Sunnis for God's sake have 10,000 mosques in iran they administer and lead prayer.

Unity can be reached when both sides respect each other and force is not used to change others as we see in bahrain and saudi arabia.however unity is impossible the wahhabi way.in the Shia majority areas of saudi arabia's oil-rich eastern province the Shia are officially not allowed to administer their places of worship.in medina too where you find close to 100,000 indigenous Shia (known as nakhawilah),the same bad treatment.do they have schools or jobs? No!

A muslim should avoid congregational prayer enjoined by Allah? SunhanALlah!

I never said that.its your choice,if you're bent on discrimination.

If Saudi does wrong, we should point it out. No need to use that to justify inequity

Please you can start by condemning the targeted Shia killings in pakistan by saudi sponsored terrorists.you can also condemn the forceful saudi role in oppressing the Shia majority in bahrain.the treatment of the Shia in the eastern region of saudi arabia.but you have no right to copy fabricated stories and lies from sunni extremist anti-shia website to tarnish the image of iran,a muslim country much hated by the west and zionists.you've even copied western sources to target iran.you don't have to have two wrongs to make a right.iran doesn't have to be as bad as saudi arabia,before you can speak out.show us your fear of God and courage and go to the appropriate threads or even here to condemn or even criticize saudi arabia.