₦airaland Forum

Russia is not Iran,where Nigeria can sieze its containers of weapons in transit in Lagos, destined for another west african country because of american/israeli pressure and diplomatic games.Russia is not Iran where the SSS, through some local action congress politicians in ilorin can frame a rival politician who happens to be a Shi'ite Muslim and accuse him of "spying for Iran" and give israel's intelligence war over iran a boost.

Russia stood with Syria and its president,Bashar al assad,and the West can't repeat the libya scenario in Syria.

Nigeria may need Russia in many fields.and cooperation with both Russia and China is essential to break Western hegemony over Nigeria.our government should not let western influence dictate Nigeria's foreign policy and how we interact with countries hated by the west or viewed as western rivals.

From the report I read,the sailors had licences for their arms and they also informed the Nigeria Navy of their entrance.I hope its not some bribe seeking officials that want to lead us into a mess we are not prepared for.

Rafidi :
[b]Please Nigerians should be able to tell when a story sounds like comedy.firstly I have been informed by a reliable source who is a friend in Ilorin that one of the so called "suspect" arrested is an A-C-N chieftain in the state,and he is a Shia Muslim.he is facing a power struggle with other A-C-N members,and being a Shia,some dumb people want to make him an "Iranian spy".there is an estimated 10-15 million Shia Muslims in Nigeria,and that is not enough to make one "an Iranian spy".and what would this Yoruba man be spying for Iran in Kwara of all places? This is dirty Yoruba politics,and it is really unfortunate the SSS is been dragged into it to claim unwarranted glory.moreover,our cheap media like Vanguard who the israeli ambassador have visited their office,is quick to pick up the story and publish it because the word "Iran" is found there.secondly,Shia Muslims are different from the Sunni extremists known as Salafists or Wahhabi.the Shia themselves are victims of Wahhabi terrorism around the world.boko haram and alqaeda follow the Wahhabi or Salafist ideology.lastly,what is the evidence for such a dramatic story? I hope the Iranian embassy would sue the newspaper that paraded this story and whoever made it up and disseminated it,for dragging Iran's image into the mud.last time it was containers of weapons in transit that were arrested in Lagos.the iranian weapons were bought by either senegal or gambia.internationally,it is against UN resolutions to either buy or sell weapons to iran.obviously the west african country was too scared to admit it bought iranian made weapons from iran.israel quickly led the propaganda campaign,and nigeria newspapers like the vanguard and guardian were publishing exactly as israeli newspapers on the siezed weapons.first we were told the weapons were for gaza.imagine where nigeria is and where gaza is.later,apparently the US in the UN influenced the Nigerian decision to report Iran to the security council.perhaps this story today is meant to coincide with the coming of Bill Clinton.it is called "eye service".the question is why are we the ones now looking for trouble with iran? Must iran be our enemy because the US is a rival of iran? [/b]

Yoruba politics again.Tinubu should call his men to order in Kwara.

Russia Must Beware of West Chicanery Over Bahrain, Syria

By Finian Cunningham

February 19, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -  Moscow should be careful not to buy into recent cosmetic efforts by the West to revamp its Persian Gulf client monarchy - and to sell the Bahraini people short for the sake of saving its ally in Syria.

As Bahrain marked the second anniversary of its popular uprising on 14 February, the embattled Western-backed monarchy has renewed attempts apparently to seek a negotiated political settlement with various opposition groups to its two-year crisis.

However, many analysts both within and outside the Persian Gulf kingdom see the new push for “national dialogue” as nothing more than a cynical political maneuver by the Sunni regime to buy off a popular, mainly Shia, challenge to its unelected rule. The ulterior agenda of the talks process, which opened on 10 February, is not to produce a genuine democratic political solution, but rather to revamp the corrupt status quo with a sticking-plaster appearance of reform.

This is where Russia’s recent engagement in Bahrain’s political affairs should tread carefully.

Ahead of the kingdom’s political dialogue, the Russian foreign ministry hosted a delegation from Bahrain’s main extant opposition group, Al Wefaq, in Moscow. The word “extant” is used advisedly here because most of Bahrain’s more critical opposition to the regime is in prison, some of whom are serving life sentences on trumped-up charges of subversion.

The Wefaq delegation to Moscow earlier this month was led by Sheikh Ali Salman, the top figure in the mainly Shia political organization, who held talks with Russia’s deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

Bogdanov also met on 8 February with Bahrain’s ambassador to Russia, Hashim Hasan Al Bash. Following the series of meetings, the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement: “Russia will continue to hold contacts with the kingdom’s leaders as well as representatives of opposition groups in firm support of efforts to resolve internal problems through a national consensus in the interests of all Bahrainis.”
 

If we give Russian diplomats the benefit of doubt, one could see their belated efforts as a well-meaning attempt to help resolve the conflict in Bahrain, where over the past two years some 100 people have been killed in clashes with state forces and thousands have been injured and imprisoned - huge numbers relative to the tiny national population of less than 600,000.

From this seemingly benevolent Russian intervention, Moscow stands to gain some kudos in the strategic Persian Gulf Arab region where the Sunni monarchies ruling over the oil-rich sheikhdoms of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates are staunch allies of the Al Khalifa regime in Bahrain. Some 30 per cent of all of the world’s shipped oil trade passes every day out the Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia is the world’s top oil exporter, producing 10 million barrels per day.

This strategic factor points to a connection with Syria. Russia’s engagement in Bahrain - an established British and American sphere of influence - comes at the same time that Moscow is stepping up diplomatic efforts with its Soviet-era Syrian ally to find a political solution in that country.

Syria has also been racked by two years of relentless violence, where an armed insurgency against the government of President Bashar Al Assad has been equipped and funded by the Persian Gulf monarchies, as well as by the US, Britain, France and other NATO powers, including Turkey and Germany.

The Russian foreign ministry alluded to Moscow’s joined-up diplomacy when it said: “We are certain that it’s possible, with enough political will, to ease the tensions and resolve the causes of the conflict in Bahrain as well as in other countries in the region.”

Somewhat surprisingly, recent moves towards political negotiations in Syria appear to be bearing fruit. After months of intransigence towards the government in Damascus, Moaz Al Khatib, the leader of the exile opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, suddenly announced that the SNC is ready to negotiate a political transition with President Assad. The Syrian government has reciprocated with senior members meeting opposition groups and saying that it is ready for talks with “no preconditions”.

This rapid change in political gear is best understood in the light of punishing setbacks inflicted by the formidable Syrian national army on the Syrian insurgents and their foreign mercenary networks. It therefore seems now that the West’s military option of removing Assad by force is spent.

After two years of futile skirmishing and some 70-80,000 deaths, the Western powers and their regional Sunni Arab and Turk allies have come to the realization that their desired goal of regime change in Syria is not going to happen under Plan A, namely armed subversion. Plan B - a political process - now seems to be more a feasible route.

An integral part of this trade-off is Bahrain. If Russia can help bolster the Bahraini opposition and inveigle it into accepting political terms with the Western and Saudi-backed Al Khalifa regime, then the West and the Persian Gulf monarchs will reciprocate by easing the pressure on the Assad government in Syria by: a) reducing the supply of arms to the militants in Syria, which recent reports indicate is the case; and b) pushing the SNC group into accepting negotiations with Assad, which up until recently was a non-starter but now appears to be underway.

Despite its relatively small size, Bahrain has huge strategic value. It provides the base for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and a Western military projection point across the entire Middle East. Moreover, the democratic uprising in Bahrain threatens the entire Sunni monarchial realm that presides over the Persian Gulf and which is the lynchpin of the American petrodollar global economy. Ongoing political unrest in Bahrain is a mortal threat to these vital Western interests. Therefore, it is imperative that Washington, London and the Sunni oil sheikhdoms find a way of “restoring order” in Bahrain. An implicit deal with Russia over Syria would be more than a worthwhile trade-off.

The question is: does the Bahraini pro-democracy movement stand to lose out in any grubby political quid pro quo? Or as a member of the 14th February Coalition - a revolutionary opposition group that has repudiated dialogue with the regime - put it disdainfully: “Are we being sacrificed in the bigger picture of regional geopolitics?”

For a start, the supposed “Arab Spring” comparisons between Syria and Bahrain are invalid. In Syria, the Assad government has a democratic mandate and retains popular support. The so-called uprising, championed by Western governments and news media with romantic, heroic prose, is in reality an externally driven terrorist insurgency that has no legitimacy among the mass of Syrians. This systematic violence has been fomented covertly and criminally by foreign powers.

While there is cause for political reforms in Syria - in what country is there not? - it is completely fallacious to ascribe the turmoil over the past two years to an Arab-Spring-style popular uprising for democracy. The upheavals in Syria are the manifestation of an illegal policy of regime change by Western powers and their Sunni Arab and Turk allies - all of which see the removal of Assad as an opportune blow against Shia Iran.

By contrast, for the past two years Bahrain has indeed witnessed a genuine popular uprising that conforms to the normative meaning of the Arab Spring pro-democracy movement, which swept the Middle East and North African region from Tunisia to Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Yemen in early 2011 and continues to reverberate. (Libya is another anomaly of the Arab Spring, as with Syria, which was less about genuine popular uprising and more about opportunistic NATO regime change.)

The majority of Bahrainis are demanding the right to have an elected government. The people, who are mainly Shia, want an end to the autocratic rule of the Sunni Al Khalifa monarchy that was imposed on them when the old colonial power, Britain, granted nominal independence in 1971. Tellingly, the Western governments and their subservient news media have largely ignored the plight of the Bahraini people, which by normal reasoning is a righteous cause deserving full support and media coverage.

Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf absolute monarchs have sat nervously and parlously throughout these seismic regional shocks. Popular protests and any signs of incipient dissent within the Persian Gulf enclave have been ruthlessly suppressed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. These monarchs’ fears of a pro-democracy contagion is why they supported the invasion of Bahrain in March 2011 by the Saudi-led Peninsula Shield Defence Force to try to crush the Bahraini uprising. Yet, ironically and somewhat hilariously, these same Arab despots have lent copious diplomatic and material support to alleged pro-democracy uprisings in Libya and Syria.

Despite the ruthless repression in Bahrain, with Western acquiescence, the pro-democracy movement continues unabated. Indeed this past week, which marked the second anniversary of the uprising, has seen even greater numbers of demonstrations across the island. A 16-year-old youth, Hussein Al Jaziri, was shot dead in the village of Daih by regime forces, bringing even more protesters on to the streets. The previous week saw the deaths of 87-year-old Habib Ebrahim and eight-year-old Qassim Habib who both died after Al Khalifa uniformed police thugs saturated the villages of Malikiya and Karbabad with toxic chemical gas.

Popular outrage and demand for the downfall of the Khalifa regime has thus become even more determined and strident. The majority of the people do not want negotiations with the despised regime nor a “constitutional monarchy” - the people want the Khalifa dynasty to simply get the hell out of their lives and to make way for an elected government. “Freedom with dignity” is one of the people’s chants.

Saeed Shehabi of the Bahrain Freedom Movement said there should be no political dialogue with the Bahraini regime because it has shown itself to be illegitimate over years of systematic brutal repression and corruption at the expense of the majority of the Bahraini people. Shehabi said that the Bahraini people are well aware of the congenital Al Khalifa political maneuvers and sham political processes down through the decades in order to preserve its hold on power and privilege. He said: “It is clear from the insistence of the people of Bahrain that they believe that reform is not possible with this regime.”

American Middle East political analyst Dr Colin Cavell, who formerly taught at the University of Bahrain, shared this assessment. He said: “I agree with Saeed Shehabi that the people of Bahrain should not engage in political talks with the Al Khalifa junta, as their offer of dialogue is disingenuous and merely a show for the international media and a complete ruse.”

As already noted, Bahrain’s more radical opposition leadership has been imprisoned. They include redoubtable figures like Hasan Mushaima, Abduljalil Al Singace, Adbulhadi Al Khawaja and Nabeel Rajab, who have the respect and loyalty of the wider population. Some of these leaders are serving sentences of life imprisonment simply because they called for the unelected Khalifa regime to stand down and to be replaced by a republican form of government. This viewpoint resonates with the majority of the people who are continuing to protest on the streets calling for the downfall of the regime despite the recent opening of dialogue.

It is highly significant that the Wefaq opposition bloc, which met with the Russian foreign ministry, has given notice that it is willing to accept a political settlement with the Khalifa regime that would involve the coexistence of “constitutional monarchy” alongside an elected government. This is not what the majority of Bahrainis want. For the majority of Bahrainis, the continuance of the Khalifa regime in any shape or form in the public life of Bahrain is unacceptable. The violence and violations that the regime has committed makes any tolerance of a remnant anathema to the vast majority of the people.

It is also significant that Washington and London, the primary sponsors of the Khalifa rulers, have assiduously courted the participation of Wefaq in the latest political dialogue with the regime.

Writing in the Washington-based publication, The Hill, on 12 February, former director of US National Intelligence Dennis C Blair said that the US goal “should encourage moderate leaders within the Bahraini government and moderate leaders in the opposition… a gradual transition to a constitutional democratic monarchy is in Bahrain’s best long-term interest.”

Blair was, of course, too coy and cynical to say that this arrangement was also in Washington’s best interest. And, mischievously, he went on to describe Bahraini opponents of the Khalifa regime and its dialogue process as “hardliners”. That is a deft way of delegitimizing political voices that are outside the realm of tolerance to those in power and their patrons.

This is typical top-down political engineering. Washington, London and the Saudi patrons of the completely unacceptable regime in Bahrain are trying to force a political “compromise” on the Bahraini people - a compromise that leaves the regime intact and is far short of what the people want or deserve. By way of making this squalid solution palatable, the Western powers are trying to bestow legitimacy on any such ostensible “deal” by involving the participation of the Wefaq opposition bloc, thus providing a veneer of popular participation and consent.

But this is the politics of expedience and deception, not the politics of democratic freedom, rights and principle. It is the politics of extending cover to the selfish geopolitical interests of Washington, London and the Persian Gulf monarchs, not the politics of supporting the Bahraini people who have been denied their natural rights for more than four decades.

It would be a grave mistake for the Russian government to adopt the premise of Syria and Bahrain as being somehow equivalent and reciprocal. The former is a case of outright criminal aggression by cynical foreign powers; while Bahrain is a clear case of a people genuinely demanding democratic rights. They are separate and non-negotiable.

In the long term, Russia’s foreign policy would be more sustainable, ethical and rewarding if it was based on defending, absolutely, the national sovereign rights of Syrians, that is, without any contingent quid pro quo; while at the same time supporting, separately, the sovereign aspirations of the Bahraini people - and not on affording political cover to self-serving Western imperialist intrigues and collusion with Arab despots.
 

Finian Cunningham, originally from Belfast, Ireland, was born in 1963. He is a prominent expert in international affairs. The author and media commentator was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted human rights violations by the Western-backed regime. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34026.htm

Russia Must Beware of West Chicanery Over Bahrain, Syria

By Finian Cunningham

February 19, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -  Moscow should be careful not to buy into recent cosmetic efforts by the West to revamp its Persian Gulf client monarchy - and to sell the Bahraini people short for the sake of saving its ally in Syria.

As Bahrain marked the second anniversary of its popular uprising on 14 February, the embattled Western-backed monarchy has renewed attempts apparently to seek a negotiated political settlement with various opposition groups to its two-year crisis.

However, many analysts both within and outside the Persian Gulf kingdom see the new push for “national dialogue” as nothing more than a cynical political maneuver by the Sunni regime to buy off a popular, mainly Shia, challenge to its unelected rule. The ulterior agenda of the talks process, which opened on 10 February, is not to produce a genuine democratic political solution, but rather to revamp the corrupt status quo with a sticking-plaster appearance of reform.

This is where Russia’s recent engagement in Bahrain’s political affairs should tread carefully.

Ahead of the kingdom’s political dialogue, the Russian foreign ministry hosted a delegation from Bahrain’s main extant opposition group, Al Wefaq, in Moscow. The word “extant” is used advisedly here because most of Bahrain’s more critical opposition to the regime is in prison, some of whom are serving life sentences on trumped-up charges of subversion.

The Wefaq delegation to Moscow earlier this month was led by Sheikh Ali Salman, the top figure in the mainly Shia political organization, who held talks with Russia’s deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

Bogdanov also met on 8 February with Bahrain’s ambassador to Russia, Hashim Hasan Al Bash. Following the series of meetings, the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement: “Russia will continue to hold contacts with the kingdom’s leaders as well as representatives of opposition groups in firm support of efforts to resolve internal problems through a national consensus in the interests of all Bahrainis.”
 

If we give Russian diplomats the benefit of doubt, one could see their belated efforts as a well-meaning attempt to help resolve the conflict in Bahrain, where over the past two years some 100 people have been killed in clashes with state forces and thousands have been injured and imprisoned - huge numbers relative to the tiny national population of less than 600,000.

From this seemingly benevolent Russian intervention, Moscow stands to gain some kudos in the strategic Persian Gulf Arab region where the Sunni monarchies ruling over the oil-rich sheikhdoms of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates are staunch allies of the Al Khalifa regime in Bahrain. Some 30 per cent of all of the world’s shipped oil trade passes every day out the Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia is the world’s top oil exporter, producing 10 million barrels per day.

This strategic factor points to a connection with Syria. Russia’s engagement in Bahrain - an established British and American sphere of influence - comes at the same time that Moscow is stepping up diplomatic efforts with its Soviet-era Syrian ally to find a political solution in that country.

Syria has also been racked by two years of relentless violence, where an armed insurgency against the government of President Bashar Al Assad has been equipped and funded by the Persian Gulf monarchies, as well as by the US, Britain, France and other NATO powers, including Turkey and Germany.

The Russian foreign ministry alluded to Moscow’s joined-up diplomacy when it said: “We are certain that it’s possible, with enough political will, to ease the tensions and resolve the causes of the conflict in Bahrain as well as in other countries in the region.”

Somewhat surprisingly, recent moves towards political negotiations in Syria appear to be bearing fruit. After months of intransigence towards the government in Damascus, Moaz Al Khatib, the leader of the exile opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, suddenly announced that the SNC is ready to negotiate a political transition with President Assad. The Syrian government has reciprocated with senior members meeting opposition groups and saying that it is ready for talks with “no preconditions”.

This rapid change in political gear is best understood in the light of punishing setbacks inflicted by the formidable Syrian national army on the Syrian insurgents and their foreign mercenary networks. It therefore seems now that the West’s military option of removing Assad by force is spent.

After two years of futile skirmishing and some 70-80,000 deaths, the Western powers and their regional Sunni Arab and Turk allies have come to the realization that their desired goal of regime change in Syria is not going to happen under Plan A, namely armed subversion. Plan B - a political process - now seems to be more a feasible route.

An integral part of this trade-off is Bahrain. If Russia can help bolster the Bahraini opposition and inveigle it into accepting political terms with the Western and Saudi-backed Al Khalifa regime, then the West and the Persian Gulf monarchs will reciprocate by easing the pressure on the Assad government in Syria by: a) reducing the supply of arms to the militants in Syria, which recent reports indicate is the case; and b) pushing the SNC group into accepting negotiations with Assad, which up until recently was a non-starter but now appears to be underway.

Despite its relatively small size, Bahrain has huge strategic value. It provides the base for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and a Western military projection point across the entire Middle East. Moreover, the democratic uprising in Bahrain threatens the entire Sunni monarchial realm that presides over the Persian Gulf and which is the lynchpin of the American petrodollar global economy. Ongoing political unrest in Bahrain is a mortal threat to these vital Western interests. Therefore, it is imperative that Washington, London and the Sunni oil sheikhdoms find a way of “restoring order” in Bahrain. An implicit deal with Russia over Syria would be more than a worthwhile trade-off.

The question is: does the Bahraini pro-democracy movement stand to lose out in any grubby political quid pro quo? Or as a member of the 14th February Coalition - a revolutionary opposition group that has repudiated dialogue with the regime - put it disdainfully: “Are we being sacrificed in the bigger picture of regional geopolitics?”

For a start, the supposed “Arab Spring” comparisons between Syria and Bahrain are invalid. In Syria, the Assad government has a democratic mandate and retains popular support. The so-called uprising, championed by Western governments and news media with romantic, heroic prose, is in reality an externally driven terrorist insurgency that has no legitimacy among the mass of Syrians. This systematic violence has been fomented covertly and criminally by foreign powers.

While there is cause for political reforms in Syria - in what country is there not? - it is completely fallacious to ascribe the turmoil over the past two years to an Arab-Spring-style popular uprising for democracy. The upheavals in Syria are the manifestation of an illegal policy of regime change by Western powers and their Sunni Arab and Turk allies - all of which see the removal of Assad as an opportune blow against Shia Iran.

By contrast, for the past two years Bahrain has indeed witnessed a genuine popular uprising that conforms to the normative meaning of the Arab Spring pro-democracy movement, which swept the Middle East and North African region from Tunisia to Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Yemen in early 2011 and continues to reverberate. (Libya is another anomaly of the Arab Spring, as with Syria, which was less about genuine popular uprising and more about opportunistic NATO regime change.)

The majority of Bahrainis are demanding the right to have an elected government. The people, who are mainly Shia, want an end to the autocratic rule of the Sunni Al Khalifa monarchy that was imposed on them when the old colonial power, Britain, granted nominal independence in 1971. Tellingly, the Western governments and their subservient news media have largely ignored the plight of the Bahraini people, which by normal reasoning is a righteous cause deserving full support and media coverage.

Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf absolute monarchs have sat nervously and parlously throughout these seismic regional shocks. Popular protests and any signs of incipient dissent within the Persian Gulf enclave have been ruthlessly suppressed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. These monarchs’ fears of a pro-democracy contagion is why they supported the invasion of Bahrain in March 2011 by the Saudi-led Peninsula Shield Defence Force to try to crush the Bahraini uprising. Yet, ironically and somewhat hilariously, these same Arab despots have lent copious diplomatic and material support to alleged pro-democracy uprisings in Libya and Syria.

Despite the ruthless repression in Bahrain, with Western acquiescence, the pro-democracy movement continues unabated. Indeed this past week, which marked the second anniversary of the uprising, has seen even greater numbers of demonstrations across the island. A 16-year-old youth, Hussein Al Jaziri, was shot dead in the village of Daih by regime forces, bringing even more protesters on to the streets. The previous week saw the deaths of 87-year-old Habib Ebrahim and eight-year-old Qassim Habib who both died after Al Khalifa uniformed police thugs saturated the villages of Malikiya and Karbabad with toxic chemical gas.

Popular outrage and demand for the downfall of the Khalifa regime has thus become even more determined and strident. The majority of the people do not want negotiations with the despised regime nor a “constitutional monarchy” - the people want the Khalifa dynasty to simply get the hell out of their lives and to make way for an elected government. “Freedom with dignity” is one of the people’s chants.

Saeed Shehabi of the Bahrain Freedom Movement said there should be no political dialogue with the Bahraini regime because it has shown itself to be illegitimate over years of systematic brutal repression and corruption at the expense of the majority of the Bahraini people. Shehabi said that the Bahraini people are well aware of the congenital Al Khalifa political maneuvers and sham political processes down through the decades in order to preserve its hold on power and privilege. He said: “It is clear from the insistence of the people of Bahrain that they believe that reform is not possible with this regime.”

American Middle East political analyst Dr Colin Cavell, who formerly taught at the University of Bahrain, shared this assessment. He said: “I agree with Saeed Shehabi that the people of Bahrain should not engage in political talks with the Al Khalifa junta, as their offer of dialogue is disingenuous and merely a show for the international media and a complete ruse.”

As already noted, Bahrain’s more radical opposition leadership has been imprisoned. They include redoubtable figures like Hasan Mushaima, Abduljalil Al Singace, Adbulhadi Al Khawaja and Nabeel Rajab, who have the respect and loyalty of the wider population. Some of these leaders are serving sentences of life imprisonment simply because they called for the unelected Khalifa regime to stand down and to be replaced by a republican form of government. This viewpoint resonates with the majority of the people who are continuing to protest on the streets calling for the downfall of the regime despite the recent opening of dialogue.

It is highly significant that the Wefaq opposition bloc, which met with the Russian foreign ministry, has given notice that it is willing to accept a political settlement with the Khalifa regime that would involve the coexistence of “constitutional monarchy” alongside an elected government. This is not what the majority of Bahrainis want. For the majority of Bahrainis, the continuance of the Khalifa regime in any shape or form in the public life of Bahrain is unacceptable. The violence and violations that the regime has committed makes any tolerance of a remnant anathema to the vast majority of the people.

It is also significant that Washington and London, the primary sponsors of the Khalifa rulers, have assiduously courted the participation of Wefaq in the latest political dialogue with the regime.

Writing in the Washington-based publication, The Hill, on 12 February, former director of US National Intelligence Dennis C Blair said that the US goal “should encourage moderate leaders within the Bahraini government and moderate leaders in the opposition… a gradual transition to a constitutional democratic monarchy is in Bahrain’s best long-term interest.”

Blair was, of course, too coy and cynical to say that this arrangement was also in Washington’s best interest. And, mischievously, he went on to describe Bahraini opponents of the Khalifa regime and its dialogue process as “hardliners”. That is a deft way of delegitimizing political voices that are outside the realm of tolerance to those in power and their patrons.

This is typical top-down political engineering. Washington, London and the Saudi patrons of the completely unacceptable regime in Bahrain are trying to force a political “compromise” on the Bahraini people - a compromise that leaves the regime intact and is far short of what the people want or deserve. By way of making this squalid solution palatable, the Western powers are trying to bestow legitimacy on any such ostensible “deal” by involving the participation of the Wefaq opposition bloc, thus providing a veneer of popular participation and consent.

But this is the politics of expedience and deception, not the politics of democratic freedom, rights and principle. It is the politics of extending cover to the selfish geopolitical interests of Washington, London and the Persian Gulf monarchs, not the politics of supporting the Bahraini people who have been denied their natural rights for more than four decades.

It would be a grave mistake for the Russian government to adopt the premise of Syria and Bahrain as being somehow equivalent and reciprocal. The former is a case of outright criminal aggression by cynical foreign powers; while Bahrain is a clear case of a people genuinely demanding democratic rights. They are separate and non-negotiable.

In the long term, Russia’s foreign policy would be more sustainable, ethical and rewarding if it was based on defending, absolutely, the national sovereign rights of Syrians, that is, without any contingent quid pro quo; while at the same time supporting, separately, the sovereign aspirations of the Bahraini people - and not on affording political cover to self-serving Western imperialist intrigues and collusion with Arab despots.
 

Finian Cunningham, originally from Belfast, Ireland, was born in 1963. He is a prominent expert in international affairs. The author and media commentator was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted human rights violations by the Western-backed regime. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34026.htm

Russia Must Beware of West Chicanery Over Bahrain, Syria

By Finian Cunningham

February 19, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -  Moscow should be careful not to buy into recent cosmetic efforts by the West to revamp its Persian Gulf client monarchy - and to sell the Bahraini people short for the sake of saving its ally in Syria.

As Bahrain marked the second anniversary of its popular uprising on 14 February, the embattled Western-backed monarchy has renewed attempts apparently to seek a negotiated political settlement with various opposition groups to its two-year crisis.

However, many analysts both within and outside the Persian Gulf kingdom see the new push for “national dialogue” as nothing more than a cynical political maneuver by the Sunni regime to buy off a popular, mainly Shia, challenge to its unelected rule. The ulterior agenda of the talks process, which opened on 10 February, is not to produce a genuine democratic political solution, but rather to revamp the corrupt status quo with a sticking-plaster appearance of reform.

This is where Russia’s recent engagement in Bahrain’s political affairs should tread carefully.

Ahead of the kingdom’s political dialogue, the Russian foreign ministry hosted a delegation from Bahrain’s main extant opposition group, Al Wefaq, in Moscow. The word “extant” is used advisedly here because most of Bahrain’s more critical opposition to the regime is in prison, some of whom are serving life sentences on trumped-up charges of subversion.

The Wefaq delegation to Moscow earlier this month was led by Sheikh Ali Salman, the top figure in the mainly Shia political organization, who held talks with Russia’s deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

Bogdanov also met on 8 February with Bahrain’s ambassador to Russia, Hashim Hasan Al Bash. Following the series of meetings, the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement: “Russia will continue to hold contacts with the kingdom’s leaders as well as representatives of opposition groups in firm support of efforts to resolve internal problems through a national consensus in the interests of all Bahrainis.”
 

If we give Russian diplomats the benefit of doubt, one could see their belated efforts as a well-meaning attempt to help resolve the conflict in Bahrain, where over the past two years some 100 people have been killed in clashes with state forces and thousands have been injured and imprisoned - huge numbers relative to the tiny national population of less than 600,000.

From this seemingly benevolent Russian intervention, Moscow stands to gain some kudos in the strategic Persian Gulf Arab region where the Sunni monarchies ruling over the oil-rich sheikhdoms of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates are staunch allies of the Al Khalifa regime in Bahrain. Some 30 per cent of all of the world’s shipped oil trade passes every day out the Persian Gulf, and Saudi Arabia is the world’s top oil exporter, producing 10 million barrels per day.

This strategic factor points to a connection with Syria. Russia’s engagement in Bahrain - an established British and American sphere of influence - comes at the same time that Moscow is stepping up diplomatic efforts with its Soviet-era Syrian ally to find a political solution in that country.

Syria has also been racked by two years of relentless violence, where an armed insurgency against the government of President Bashar Al Assad has been equipped and funded by the Persian Gulf monarchies, as well as by the US, Britain, France and other NATO powers, including Turkey and Germany.

The Russian foreign ministry alluded to Moscow’s joined-up diplomacy when it said: “We are certain that it’s possible, with enough political will, to ease the tensions and resolve the causes of the conflict in Bahrain as well as in other countries in the region.”

Somewhat surprisingly, recent moves towards political negotiations in Syria appear to be bearing fruit. After months of intransigence towards the government in Damascus, Moaz Al Khatib, the leader of the exile opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, suddenly announced that the SNC is ready to negotiate a political transition with President Assad. The Syrian government has reciprocated with senior members meeting opposition groups and saying that it is ready for talks with “no preconditions”.

This rapid change in political gear is best understood in the light of punishing setbacks inflicted by the formidable Syrian national army on the Syrian insurgents and their foreign mercenary networks. It therefore seems now that the West’s military option of removing Assad by force is spent.

After two years of futile skirmishing and some 70-80,000 deaths, the Western powers and their regional Sunni Arab and Turk allies have come to the realization that their desired goal of regime change in Syria is not going to happen under Plan A, namely armed subversion. Plan B - a political process - now seems to be more a feasible route.

An integral part of this trade-off is Bahrain. If Russia can help bolster the Bahraini opposition and inveigle it into accepting political terms with the Western and Saudi-backed Al Khalifa regime, then the West and the Persian Gulf monarchs will reciprocate by easing the pressure on the Assad government in Syria by: a) reducing the supply of arms to the militants in Syria, which recent reports indicate is the case; and b) pushing the SNC group into accepting negotiations with Assad, which up until recently was a non-starter but now appears to be underway.

Despite its relatively small size, Bahrain has huge strategic value. It provides the base for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and a Western military projection point across the entire Middle East. Moreover, the democratic uprising in Bahrain threatens the entire Sunni monarchial realm that presides over the Persian Gulf and which is the lynchpin of the American petrodollar global economy. Ongoing political unrest in Bahrain is a mortal threat to these vital Western interests. Therefore, it is imperative that Washington, London and the Sunni oil sheikhdoms find a way of “restoring order” in Bahrain. An implicit deal with Russia over Syria would be more than a worthwhile trade-off.

The question is: does the Bahraini pro-democracy movement stand to lose out in any grubby political quid pro quo? Or as a member of the 14th February Coalition - a revolutionary opposition group that has repudiated dialogue with the regime - put it disdainfully: “Are we being sacrificed in the bigger picture of regional geopolitics?”

For a start, the supposed “Arab Spring” comparisons between Syria and Bahrain are invalid. In Syria, the Assad government has a democratic mandate and retains popular support. The so-called uprising, championed by Western governments and news media with romantic, heroic prose, is in reality an externally driven terrorist insurgency that has no legitimacy among the mass of Syrians. This systematic violence has been fomented covertly and criminally by foreign powers.

While there is cause for political reforms in Syria - in what country is there not? - it is completely fallacious to ascribe the turmoil over the past two years to an Arab-Spring-style popular uprising for democracy. The upheavals in Syria are the manifestation of an illegal policy of regime change by Western powers and their Sunni Arab and Turk allies - all of which see the removal of Assad as an opportune blow against Shia Iran.

By contrast, for the past two years Bahrain has indeed witnessed a genuine popular uprising that conforms to the normative meaning of the Arab Spring pro-democracy movement, which swept the Middle East and North African region from Tunisia to Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Yemen in early 2011 and continues to reverberate. (Libya is another anomaly of the Arab Spring, as with Syria, which was less about genuine popular uprising and more about opportunistic NATO regime change.)

The majority of Bahrainis are demanding the right to have an elected government. The people, who are mainly Shia, want an end to the autocratic rule of the Sunni Al Khalifa monarchy that was imposed on them when the old colonial power, Britain, granted nominal independence in 1971. Tellingly, the Western governments and their subservient news media have largely ignored the plight of the Bahraini people, which by normal reasoning is a righteous cause deserving full support and media coverage.

Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf absolute monarchs have sat nervously and parlously throughout these seismic regional shocks. Popular protests and any signs of incipient dissent within the Persian Gulf enclave have been ruthlessly suppressed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. These monarchs’ fears of a pro-democracy contagion is why they supported the invasion of Bahrain in March 2011 by the Saudi-led Peninsula Shield Defence Force to try to crush the Bahraini uprising. Yet, ironically and somewhat hilariously, these same Arab despots have lent copious diplomatic and material support to alleged pro-democracy uprisings in Libya and Syria.

Despite the ruthless repression in Bahrain, with Western acquiescence, the pro-democracy movement continues unabated. Indeed this past week, which marked the second anniversary of the uprising, has seen even greater numbers of demonstrations across the island. A 16-year-old youth, Hussein Al Jaziri, was shot dead in the village of Daih by regime forces, bringing even more protesters on to the streets. The previous week saw the deaths of 87-year-old Habib Ebrahim and eight-year-old Qassim Habib who both died after Al Khalifa uniformed police thugs saturated the villages of Malikiya and Karbabad with toxic chemical gas.

Popular outrage and demand for the downfall of the Khalifa regime has thus become even more determined and strident. The majority of the people do not want negotiations with the despised regime nor a “constitutional monarchy” - the people want the Khalifa dynasty to simply get the hell out of their lives and to make way for an elected government. “Freedom with dignity” is one of the people’s chants.

Saeed Shehabi of the Bahrain Freedom Movement said there should be no political dialogue with the Bahraini regime because it has shown itself to be illegitimate over years of systematic brutal repression and corruption at the expense of the majority of the Bahraini people. Shehabi said that the Bahraini people are well aware of the congenital Al Khalifa political maneuvers and sham political processes down through the decades in order to preserve its hold on power and privilege. He said: “It is clear from the insistence of the people of Bahrain that they believe that reform is not possible with this regime.”

American Middle East political analyst Dr Colin Cavell, who formerly taught at the University of Bahrain, shared this assessment. He said: “I agree with Saeed Shehabi that the people of Bahrain should not engage in political talks with the Al Khalifa junta, as their offer of dialogue is disingenuous and merely a show for the international media and a complete ruse.”

As already noted, Bahrain’s more radical opposition leadership has been imprisoned. They include redoubtable figures like Hasan Mushaima, Abduljalil Al Singace, Adbulhadi Al Khawaja and Nabeel Rajab, who have the respect and loyalty of the wider population. Some of these leaders are serving sentences of life imprisonment simply because they called for the unelected Khalifa regime to stand down and to be replaced by a republican form of government. This viewpoint resonates with the majority of the people who are continuing to protest on the streets calling for the downfall of the regime despite the recent opening of dialogue.

It is highly significant that the Wefaq opposition bloc, which met with the Russian foreign ministry, has given notice that it is willing to accept a political settlement with the Khalifa regime that would involve the coexistence of “constitutional monarchy” alongside an elected government. This is not what the majority of Bahrainis want. For the majority of Bahrainis, the continuance of the Khalifa regime in any shape or form in the public life of Bahrain is unacceptable. The violence and violations that the regime has committed makes any tolerance of a remnant anathema to the vast majority of the people.

It is also significant that Washington and London, the primary sponsors of the Khalifa rulers, have assiduously courted the participation of Wefaq in the latest political dialogue with the regime.

Writing in the Washington-based publication, The Hill, on 12 February, former director of US National Intelligence Dennis C Blair said that the US goal “should encourage moderate leaders within the Bahraini government and moderate leaders in the opposition… a gradual transition to a constitutional democratic monarchy is in Bahrain’s best long-term interest.”

Blair was, of course, too coy and cynical to say that this arrangement was also in Washington’s best interest. And, mischievously, he went on to describe Bahraini opponents of the Khalifa regime and its dialogue process as “hardliners”. That is a deft way of delegitimizing political voices that are outside the realm of tolerance to those in power and their patrons.

This is typical top-down political engineering. Washington, London and the Saudi patrons of the completely unacceptable regime in Bahrain are trying to force a political “compromise” on the Bahraini people - a compromise that leaves the regime intact and is far short of what the people want or deserve. By way of making this squalid solution palatable, the Western powers are trying to bestow legitimacy on any such ostensible “deal” by involving the participation of the Wefaq opposition bloc, thus providing a veneer of popular participation and consent.

But this is the politics of expedience and deception, not the politics of democratic freedom, rights and principle. It is the politics of extending cover to the selfish geopolitical interests of Washington, London and the Persian Gulf monarchs, not the politics of supporting the Bahraini people who have been denied their natural rights for more than four decades.

It would be a grave mistake for the Russian government to adopt the premise of Syria and Bahrain as being somehow equivalent and reciprocal. The former is a case of outright criminal aggression by cynical foreign powers; while Bahrain is a clear case of a people genuinely demanding democratic rights. They are separate and non-negotiable.

In the long term, Russia’s foreign policy would be more sustainable, ethical and rewarding if it was based on defending, absolutely, the national sovereign rights of Syrians, that is, without any contingent quid pro quo; while at the same time supporting, separately, the sovereign aspirations of the Bahraini people - and not on affording political cover to self-serving Western imperialist intrigues and collusion with Arab despots.
 

Finian Cunningham, originally from Belfast, Ireland, was born in 1963. He is a prominent expert in international affairs. The author and media commentator was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted human rights violations by the Western-backed regime. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34026.htm

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

[img]http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20130214/soltani20130214133003523.jpg[/img]

Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:40PM GM

While Britain claims to be an advocate of human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and many other countries around the world, British history itself is corroborating evidence that Britain, the greatest human rights preacher, has also been the most flagrant human rights breacher.


More than 500,000 German civilians and refugees, mostly women and children, were slaughtered by Britain’s saturation bombing in 1945, one of the worst massacres of all time.

Over 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million defenseless inhabitants of German city Dresden under Britain’s then Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s order, which not only reduced one of the greatest centers of northern Europe to flaming ruins, but also led to one of the worst war crimes of the Second World War.

Dresden’s bombing in February, 13, 1945 was so relentless that some historians believe it was the height of Winston Churchill’s madness.

“I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war, what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau,” Churchill said once.

Toward the end of the war, Churchill’s desired firestorm was finally created. More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted after British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) assaulted Dresden. However, those who perished in the centre of the city could not be traced, as the temperature in the area reached 1600 degree Centigrade.

Dresden’s citizens barely had time to reach their shelters and those who sought refuge underground often suffocated as oxygen was pulled from the air to feed the flames. Others perish in a blast of white heat, heat strong enough to melt human flesh.

When the bombing started, no one could imagine that in less than 24 hours all those innocent people could die screaming in Churchill's firestorms.

If there was a war crime, certainly the Dresden tragedy would rank as one of the most sinister of all time. Sadly, however, Churchill, who ordered the slaughter of up to a half million innocent people in this horrifying tragedy, was knighted by Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.

The British queen made Churchill a knight of the Order of the Garter, Britain’s highest order of knighthood.

MOS/SSM/HE

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/14/288935/britains-forgotten-war-crime-of-wwii/

so Imo would soon become the Muslim majority state in the Igbo South-East?

not bad at all.in the predominantly muslim north,you still find majority christian states.so a little igbo tolerance in sharing between christianity,islam and traditional religion would do good.the igbos would cease to be victimized collectively by either of the two sides.

REASONS WHY ACN COULD LOSE LAGOS TO PDP:

1.) LASTMA touts-robbers in uniform.
2.) Policemen in vans with the logo of "governor's office" arresting motorists for traffic violations.in other words police with cover from "governor's office" is doing the work of LASTMA (aka robbers in uniform) and finding excuses under the big title of "traffic violations" to get bribe from drivers.this happens on bourdillon in ikoyi, and also on ozumba mbadiwe in victoria island with policemen on motor bike dressed like hungry robots.
3.) the lekki toll gates
4.) the yet-to-be-commissioned lekki-ikoyi bridge which is expected to be tolled.
5.) the ban of okada is not bad,but the lack of cheap alternative to reduce the suffering of people who depended on okadas.
6.) Fashola should get his priority right from his cosmetic work in Lagos like planting flowers and patching roads (some of which he still tolls) to focus on making changes to beautify the faces of angry and hungry looking Lagosians.

logicboy

Merry Christmas.

Pity!

manmustwac: So the tyrant is a nuisance to his fellow shia muslims as well

A very serious bully.he is not even feeling shame.

I was in the muslim section and I nominated LagosShia for poster of the year,for many reasons.that Sunni tyrant Maclatunji hid my post because I also exposed his rules in the thread for "ojoro".rule #2,anyone he has banned is disqualify.rule #7,if there is a tie,he can decide the winner.he has banned LagosShia just a week ago in this thread for saying what their own Prophet have said about one of his wives,Aisha,who is highly regarded by Sunnis since she is the daughter of their first caliph,while she is disliked by the Shia.

The issue is this is all not my business.but the tyranny and silly attitude that useless moderator is displaying on everyone (both non-muslims and muslims of the other denomination,Shia) is very sick.he is clearing the way by hook or crook for his friend and fellow Sunni (tbaba) to win.please go there and oppose the tyrant.no need to fight or say anything.go in the nomination thread and just type one word : LagosShia.then post.the fool has even banned for exposing him.let us oppose the tyrant of the Islam section with our votes and without saying anything further he can use as excuse.see the nomination thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1119568/nominations-islam-muslims-section-poster

Rafidi :
further proof Aisha was not a child when the hold Prophet (s) married her:

Aisha's First Mrriage to Jubair Ibn Mot'em,before the Prophet (s) married her,contrary to what many Muslims think that the Prophet (s) was the first to marry her

al-Tabaqat al-Kabir of Ibn Sa'ad Volume 10,Page 59:

"the holy Prophet (s) made a proposal of marriage to Abu Bakr (Aisha's father), to marry Aisha.Abu Bakr said: I have given her (Aisha) to Jubair Ibn Mot'em;so let me talk to them.so he took her from them and he divorced her. after that,the Prophet (s) married Aisha".

so that implies Aisha may not have even being a virgin when Prophet Mohammed married her.

Zet72: No problem, it's 1 to 1 atlease no Muslim will say Christians allow gay marriage

I don't see this as any 1 to 1.

There is no Muslim religious establishment that have endorsed gay marriage,the way for instance the anglican church does.this muslim guy in france is a random case.his case has nothing to do with any religious establishment in Islam.there is no Sunni scholar or Shia authority that have authorized him or approved of his action.

Non-muslims,the christians and the irreligious are very silly people.when Muslims hang gays,they cry about freedom and human right abuse.when a random muslim says he's gay and condoning the act,they still insult Islam and call it evil! What do you want exactly? There is no justification for this gay guy to take such step.this is an assault on the religion itself.if he wants to do what the religion frowns upon,that is his business.but he has no right to make it look that his action have a place in the religion.tolerance is one thing,and over-stepping the limit is another case entirely.

maclatunji: Actually, LagosShia's many posts don't show anything more than the fact that Aisha (RA) was a normal wife who had disagreements with her husband. Ultimately, the husband was happy enough to keep her as his wife until his death. No need to write long epistles on her status in Islam. It is obvious to anyone with a clear mind.

Keep deluding yourself- none of your Ayatollah's has more judicial power than the one ready to pass a "death sentence" on LagosShia for his actions on this thread. It is a good thing to curb him if not for any other reason for his own safety since he doesn't even understand the creed he claims to defend.

#Notsofunnyish.

I know you feel bitter and angry.but take it with integrity.

You contradicted yourself twice in the above.you said LagosShia proved nothing except that Aisha was a "normal wife".than if that is the case,why ban him?

Second contradiction,is Aisha expected to be a normal wife? From my following in this thread I saw your Koran says the wives of your prophet are not like normal or ordinary women.they must maintain high behaviour.you have contradicted your Koran.

As for the death sentence,LagosShia did not insult Aisha.also LagosShia is nigerian not an iranian.the power of the supreme leader of iran,khamanei,doesn't cover nigeria.also the shia people choose which ayatollah to follow as their personal religious or spiritual guide.how do you know LagosShia follow khamanei? Both religiously and politically your khamanei fatwa is only useful to make sunnis happy and win their sympathy for iran.

You should also stop being an extremist.don't dare mention death fatwa.its not only you that have "death fatwas".I'm sure LagosShia is our nairaland ayatollah.he can get a fatwa on you.and seriously you threatening another person's life with fatwa is in violation of nigerian law.

Take your defeat with integrity.next time don't start wars you can't win.

Long live Ayatollah LagosShia

maclatunji: Actually, you are not obliged to answer my question, Like you saw, I gave you options. Now, going by the fact that I have clearly established that the Shia leadership are not in congruence with your attempts at tainting the image of the Prophet's wife or wives and other companions and you have clearly shown a desire to continue and not to stop, I hereby invoke my powers as moderator and ban you for insulting the sensibilities of Muslims of whatever creed (even your Shia leadership) won't tolerate your actions. If a non-Muslim had done same, I would have banned him/her a long time ago.

The fact that you are hiding under the banner of being a "Shia-Muslim" will not free you of the consequence of your actions". I advise you to serve your ban with dignity and take the time-out to reflect.

For the record let me requote the position of Shia authorities on the matter:

Chei! muhehehehe,checheche,jejejeje

Bitter loser!

LagosShia have not insulted anyone.you need to burn your Sunni scriptures if you feel offended.reminds me of christian feeling bad about the OT.

You keep talking about "Shia leadership".there is no one Shia leader.the Shia Moslems follow any of the number of ayatollahs they have.all those ayatollahs are religious authorities.some may be more outspoken and critical than others when it comes to Sunnis.and how do you expect a politician like the iranian minister you're quoting to make anything but diplomatic statements? Ok agree insult is not allowed.but where is the insult?

LagosShia you'd soon be back.keep it up!

This thread is the most dramatic and informative thread I've followed in this board.a complete smack down for the OP.

With the Sunni soldiers marching,only LagosShia trashed them all.

The one that claimed to be "neutral" and a "peace broker" coming to the rescue.

The one that claimed to be neither Sunni or Shia

The fanatic who declared a war he cannot end or win.

The "educated" runaway extremist.

And the one thinking he is hitler and capable of using veto power to "convince" people

LagosShia alone quenched all of them!

Indeed "one with God (truth) is majority".

My message to LagosShia:

Keep it up and don't let them intimidate you.we dey your back kampe! We dey watch o!

thelastPope: Let us play the devil's advocate a little and assume that the minister actually wants to victimize the 3 airlines. So how is that in the interest of the rep? Or is he saying he is more concerned about the interest of the countries those airlines come from because they are fellow muslims, more than the interest of Nigeria his own country? Or are they settling him? He should tell us his real interest let us know

Don't you think if this is all about the interest of the country and air traffic into enugu,it makes more sense to send british air ways to enugu?

I see foul play by the minister in this regardless if she is being bribed or not and regardless if the rep too is bribed or not.

@LagosShia

please explain and clarify why do the Shia insult the wife of the Prophet who is among the Ahlul-Bayt according to Vedaxcool.thank you.

vedaxcool: You know what, I make it a duty not responding to multiple ids, shiaa is insulting the ahlul bayt, they insult the prophet's wife who happens to be part of the ahlul bayt, the same shias are on record to severally disobey the household of the prophet and even betray them . . . So wherever u dug up ur definition is left to you to think and compare the historical precedence of the shia towards the Islam! Your logic falls flat as the fact that shias have sometimes shown themselves to be only interested in serving their interest as it follows their ignorance just like khariwajies who turned against Ali not by joining his enemies but actually becoming his enemies, why? Simple they insisted that because he was "divinely" appointed he cannot negotiate with his enemies so your confusion that shias who turned against/betray their masters cannot be consider shias is hardly tenable, if Ali had agreed not to negotiate he wouldn't have any issues with the khariwjies, indicating that ur problems lies in claiming superior knowledge to their leaders and well established facts of Islam! Tommorrow with their warp mentality they will pretend not to do takfir yet here they are passing it on the entire kufa shia who ignored Husayn to save their necks!



Poor reasoning often produce illogical statements! How ur allusion above save the criminal hands of the shias from the fact that they murdered remains to be seen, for starters one who apostate automatically no longer can be consider a part of religion or sect but did the kufee shias renounce shia? Or did khariwajies renounce the central tenet of shiasm that Ali was divinely appointed? Pls u guys should learn to provide rational and cogent statement!

.


this guy is to easy, the shia in Kufa invited Hussayn and pledge their loyalty to him, in a single day Husayn receieved 1000 of letters pledging their loyalty! Would Husayn ever had wasted his time going all the way to kufa in the first place, they invented the disgusting matam practice that u follow blindly and ignorantly? The same Kufa has been identified by shias historians as being central to development of shiasm so lying about Yazid bribing people either shows that you shias come cheap or u do not know how to draw appropriate conclusions by simple logical reasoning! Keep blaming Yazid for your shia ancestors cowardice! Ali, Hassan and Hussayn never trusted the shias and many statement recorded in shia book shows their disappointment in their own followers always calling them all sort of names . . . Yet in your wisdom Yazid is to blame for the shia murders? Now that is sickening!




Let me redirect u back to the thread u posted the above can't! Shimr a shia and a staunch Ali supporter murdered Husaayn r.a! If you cannot get this simple fact found in shia books is lost to u I cannot really aid u beyound that! On sunnis, did they invite Husayn to kufa to start a rebellion? Did Hussayn announce his intentions to the generality of people? Did the sunni deceive Hussayn that they pledge their allegiance to him and then lie that they have no one to lead them In prayer only to ignore him when Hussayn need their help? Was shimr a sunni? Did the sunnis kill him to cover their tracks? Go to the thread and see the links provided!

Yazeed was the head of the snake that demanded the blood of Hussein.there are those among Shia in Kufa who betrayed Hussein and there are the die-hard Shia who were true to themselves and stood by Hussein to the last drop of their blood.my question is where were Sunnis? why didn't Sunnis assist Hussein? if Hussein was alive today would you have supported him? i can see earlier on you refused too curse Yazeed.

also,if someone calls himself a Shia,he is expected to love and support the Ahlul-Bayt,but if that person turns away,do you still consider him a "Shia"?i dont think so.i can go to youtube and bring you many videos of ex-muslims who presently insult Mohammed.do you still consider them "muslims"?i do not think so.

i want to know why do Sunnis love Yazeed.was he not infamous and he demanded the allegiance or blood of Hussein?

do you find any person today calling himself "Shia" that support what the people of Kufa did to Hussein? does anyone calling himself Shia today justify the betrayal of the people of Kufa? and why do you use the people in one city to hold responsible a worldwide body of believers? if today the Shia do not relate to the people of Kufa and they condemn what they did,why dont you condemn what Yazeed did and why dont you condemn at least the inaction of Sunnis to defend Hussein? from what i know history the larger body of Muslims (even to this day) are not the Shia.Yazeed definitely like his father was leading and recognized by the larger body.

to conclude,do you think Hussein's opposition to Yazeed was justified based on Islam? what do you have to say to the saudi mufti who considered Yazeed's rule as legal and Hussein as someone 'misguided'.do you agree with him?

vedaxcool: You know what, I make it a duty not responding to multiple ids, shiaa is insulting the ahlul bayt, they insult the prophet's wife who happens to be part of the ahlul bayt, the same shias are on record to severally disobey the household of the prophet and even betray them . . . So wherever u dug up ur definition is left to you to think and compare the historical precedence of the shia towards the Islam! Your logic falls flat as the fact that shias have sometimes shown themselves to be only interested in serving their interest as it follows their ignorance just like khariwajies who turned against Ali not by joining his enemies but actually becoming his enemies, why? Simple they insisted that because he was "divinely" appointed he cannot negotiate with his enemies so your confusion that shias who turned against/betray their masters cannot be consider shias is hardly tenable, if Ali had agreed not to negotiate he wouldn't have any issues with the khariwjies, indicating that ur problems lies in claiming superior knowledge to their leaders and well established facts of Islam! Tommorrow with their warp mentality they will pretend not to do takfir yet here they are passing it on the entire kufa shia who ignored Husayn to save their necks!



Poor reasoning often produce illogical statements! How ur allusion above save the criminal hands of the shias from the fact that they murdered remains to be seen, for starters one who apostate automatically no longer can be consider a part of religion or sect but did the kufee shias renounce shia? Or did khariwajies renounce the central tenet of shiasm that Ali was divinely appointed? Pls u guys should learn to provide rational and cogent statement!

.


this guy is to easy, the shia in Kufa invited Hussayn and pledge their loyalty to him, in a single day Husayn receieved 1000 of letters pledging their loyalty! Would Husayn ever had wasted his time going all the way to kufa in the first place, they invented the disgusting matam practice that u follow blindly and ignorantly? The same Kufa has been identified by shias historians as being central to development of shiasm so lying about Yazid bribing people either shows that you shias come cheap or u do not know how to draw appropriate conclusions by simple logical reasoning! Keep blaming Yazid for your shia ancestors cowardice! Ali, Hassan and Hussayn never trusted the shias and many statement recorded in shia book shows their disappointment in their own followers always calling them all sort of names . . . Yet in your wisdom Yazid is to blame for the shia murders? Now that is sickening!




Let me redirect u back to the thread u posted the above can't! Shimr a shia and a staunch Ali supporter murdered Husaayn r.a! If you cannot get this simple fact found in shia books is lost to u I cannot really aid u beyound that! On sunnis, did they invite Husayn to kufa to start a rebellion? Did Hussayn announce his intentions to the generality of people? Did the sunni deceive Hussayn that they pledge their allegiance to him and then lie that they have no one to lead them In prayer only to ignore him when Hussayn need their help? Was shimr a sunni? Did the sunnis kill him to cover their tracks? Go to the thread and see the links provided!

Yazeed was the head of the snake that demanded the blood of Hussein if Hussein did not pay allegiance to him,which ofcourse Hussein refused to do regardless of how small the number of his supporters were.there are those among Shia in Kufa who betrayed Hussein and there are the die-hard Shia who were true to themselves and stood by Hussein to the last drop of their blood.my question is where were Sunnis? why didn't Sunnis assist Hussein? if Hussein was alive today would you have supported him? i can see earlier on you refused to curse Yazeed.

also,if someone calls himself a Shia,he is expected to love and support the Ahlul-Bayt,but if that person turns away,do you still consider him a "Shia"?i dont think so.i can go to youtube and bring you many videos of ex-muslims who presently insult Mohammed.do you still consider them "muslims"?i do not think so.

i want to know why do Sunnis love Yazeed.was he not infamous and he demanded the allegiance or blood of Hussein?

do you find any person today calling himself "Shia" that support what the people of Kufa did to Hussein? does anyone calling himself Shia today justify the betrayal of the people of Kufa? and why do you use the people in one city to hold responsible a worldwide body of believers? isn't that blackmail you are applying? if today the Shia do not relate to the people of Kufa and they condemn what they did,why dont you condemn what Yazeed did and why dont you condemn at least the inaction of Sunnis to defend Hussein? from what i know of history the larger body of Muslims (even to this day) are not the Shia.Sunnis who were more of "quietists" and submissive to the rulership made the larger body.the Shia generally were perceived for their opposition to the caliphate and promoting the rule of Mohammed's household.Yazeed definitely like his father was leading and recognized by the larger body which was the Sunnis.if the Sunnis had stood with Hussein,do you think Yazeed would have succeeded in killing Hussein and his followers and household? so dont you think Sunnis are to blame for their lack of concern for the grandson of Mohammed?

to conclude,do you think Hussein's opposition to Yazeed was justified based on Islam? what do you have to say to the saudi mufti who considered Yazeed's rule as legal and Hussein as someone 'misguided'.do you agree with him?

@Vedaxcool,my post is hidden by the moderator in my reply to you.please read and reply to it in the appropriate thread where i posted it also-
https://www.nairaland.com/868603/saudi-wahhabis-name-school-honor#11842001

@Vedaxcool

If being 'Shia' is about loving,supporting,obeying and following the Imams of Mohammad's household among whom is Hussein,then why would you still consider someone who goes against that definition and join the ranks of their enemies a 'Shia'?

Don't people betray and change beliefs and religion all the time? Would you still consider Muslims who apostasize and go on to insult Mohammad and oppose him to still be 'Muslims'?

From what I just read most of who were 'Shia' in the city of Kufa are the ones who betrayed Hussein.so how does that concern a 'Shia' in another land or city?and these people of Kufa are blamed majorly for betraying Hussein and doing nothing to rescue him and not that they joined Yazid's army.cowardice actually played a role.the people of Kufa were intimidated by Yazid's army and didn't want to die.others were bribed to keep quiet.

The fact is the true Shia who were very loyal defended Hussein to their last drop of blood and didn't abandon him even at the face of imminent death.finally,what did Sunnis do to rescue Imam Hussein from Yazid's plan to either force him to pay allegiance to him or kill him? Don't you think Sunnis are as guilty if not more (since they were active in Yazid's army) in beheading your Prophet's grandson,Hussein?

thanks for sharing.

Published: 09 August, 2012, 22:06


Barack Obama, the president of the United States of America, was previously married to a gay Pakistani man. That, at least, is according to a noted Tea Party activist and author who swears that he has a case that is simply impermeable.

Barely a year after US President Barack Obama buried the birther argument by providing the country with documentation verifying his American citizenship, an all-new rumor is being propagated after Jerome Corsi, an author and well-known member of the conservative Tea Party movement, says he has uncovered proof that links the commander-in-chief to a hush-hush marriage agreement with a Pakistani man.

“The evidence, I think, is very strong,” Corsi claims in a video he has uploaded on YouTube to the TeaPartyOrg channel on August 6.

That proof, according to Corsi, comes in part from multiple pictures he’s uncovered of President Obama wearing a ring on his finger that were taken before his 1992 wedding to the first lady. That, insists Corsi, clearly shows that he must have been, of course, married to a man.

In one example, Corsi relies on a photo taken years before his marriage to Michelle Obama taken in New York’s Central Park while Obama was “supposedly” attending Columbia University.

In another photo Corsi claims is from the early 1970s, Obama is allegedly wearing a wedding band.

“He’s not married, as far as we know, unless of course this is a love affair with his Pakistani male roommate,” Corsi says. He then refers to other photos of Mr. Obama and a former male colleague, commenting, “I’ve not seen a lot of roommate pictures where two guys are that chummy.”

“The question is not to condemn Obama here for being bisexual or gay, if that’s in fact what he is, but to wonder why he’s gone to the extent of hiding it, especially when he now is supporting same sex marriage what’s the duplicity? What’s the hypocrisy?”

“Evidently Obama has never explained it,” Corsi says. “He has never given any discussion of it. It’s like many of the factors of Obama’s life. There are hidden aspects to it, lies, mysteries disinformation. Increasingly, I try to point out to people that Obama’s life reads like a classic intelligence agency disinformation operation.”

Corsi says he plans on producing more evidence confirming President Obama’s homosexuality next month as Election Day nears.

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-married-man-corsi-285/

so that no one falls for the deceit and mockery of this thread in near future,let me put the link to the original story which is about Bishop Oyedepo telling his Muslim sister to convert to christianity or die in poverty.

Bishop Oyedepo To Muslim Sister : “Convert To Christianity Or Die Poor,”

https://www.nairaland.com/1002958/bishop-oyedepo-muslim-sister-convert

Kai,LagosShia is very wicked.

see the way he used Logicbwoy and mop the floor with his logic.