Print Page | Close Window

The REAL reason why the US invaded Iraq!

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Politics
Forum Name: World Politics
Forum Discription: World Politics
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411
Printed Date: 22 December 2014 at 9:46am


Topic: The REAL reason why the US invaded Iraq!
Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Subject: The REAL reason why the US invaded Iraq!
Date Posted: 28 January 2007 at 11:56am

Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

So why did the USA invade Iraq ? Was it for oil ? Or was it a conspiracy similair to the Hezbushaytan conspiracy in Lebanon ?

The US did not invade Iraq for oil. Infact they have spent billions of dollars on this war and the most they could get out of Iraq's oil is to get their money back.

The truth is that just as Israel invaded Lebanon to make Hezbushaytan look like heroes, the US actually invaded Iraq to make Muqtada al-Sadr the hero of Iraq.

This time however, since Saddam's Government was destroyed by the US, Moqtada al-Sadr was actually meant to take over Iraq. This is why we see that the mainstream Media (which is controled by the same people who control the Governments) spoke against the war and so many controled oppositions and fake leftists were against this war...

The war on Afghanistan is silenced down by the media and the fake left who lead and set up the main protests pretty much ignore Afghanistan, concentrating almost entirely on Iraq instead.

We also saw how the Abu Ghurayb torture pictures came out and were spread in all the mainstream newspapers and the TV. These are the same newspapers and TV channels who censor 99% of the truth about world events and who cover up much of the crimes of the western Governments. But for some reason everyone suddenly seemed to turn against the Iraq war, including the fat cats and the members of secret societies and even the mainstream media.

We also saw how the US Government accused Iraq of having WMDs, but when they couldnt find any, they actually said so !

This is the same Government who covered up what really happened on 9/11. After the WTC attacks, the US Government immediately blamed the attacks on Al-Qaeda, and after Osama bin Laden denied responsiblity for the attacks the Government made numerous fake videos and audio tapes and all sorts of fake evidence to try and convince people that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

But again, when it came to Iraq, things were different. The US politicians just came out and admitted that they have found no WMDs, thus delibrately making the war unpopular.

Bush also accused Saddam of involvement in 9/11, but strange he later denied it. But why did he deny it ? If he had lied in the first place, why didnt he continue lying? If he had no evidence in the first place, why didnt he continue lying without any evidence ? Or could it be that he delibrately wants to be seen as a liar, thus making the Iraq war and the US right wing more unpopular.

The truth is that the US knew from day one that Iraq had no WMDs. Even Collin Powell admitted this when he first came to office. And the real question is, why was the US worried about Iraq's alleged Chemical and Biological bombs, when Iran was allegedly making NUCLEAR bombs ???

Surely Nuclear weapons should be a bigger concern... but strangely the US and the western media only turned their eyes towards Iran AFTER it was made clear to the whole world that Iraq did not have WMDs.

In other words, now that the US accuses Iran of making WMDs no one believes them because they had already lied about Iraq.

But the real question is Why didnt they invade Iran before Iraq ? This is while Iran is SUPPOSEDLY USA's biggest enemy in the middle east, and while Saddam was USA's former ally.

Iran was also a neighbour of Afghanistan, making it easier for the US to move it's forces from Iran to Afghanistan and from Afghanistan to Iran.

Now the media is trying to decieve us into thinking that the US wanted to invade Iran After Iraq... some going as far as claiming that the US wanted to "surround" Iran from the east and the west. This is rediculous though because it would have been much easier for the US to invade Iran in the first place, or at least right after Afghanistan.

No, the truth is something else. The US didnt invade Iran because they dont even want to invade Iran, and infact, as I have explained on another thread, Iran and USA are secretly working together:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7785& ;PN=1&TPN=1

Now consider that the US and Iran are only pretending to be enemies and then we can think about the real reason why the US invaded Iraq.

If you have a good memory, you may remember that when the US first invaded Iraq, a Shiah cleric by the name of Moqtada al-Sadr showed up, who claimed to have risen up to fight against the invaders and free Iraq.

The media suddenly concentrated on him, even though he and his forces had done very little and had killed very few if any American soldiers.

Moqtada al-Sadr's army, which he calls "the Mahdi Army", were seen as a serious force to be reckoned with... they were seen to be the "Hizbullah" of Iraq. Infact, they are closely allied to "Hezbullah" (Hezbushaytan) and they constantly praise Hasan Nasrallah.

I have no doubt that Moqtada al-Sadr was meant to be the Nasrallah of Iraq. In other words, the plan was that he would rise up against the US, and the US would then leave all of a sudden. Sadr would then be seen as the hero and saviour of Iraq, and with Saddam gone, he would take over Iraq and eventually hand it over to Iran.

This is why Ayad Allawi was at first installed as the president of Iraq. Although Allawi was born into a Shiah family he was not seen as a Shiah as he did not practice his religion in any way. He was seen as just another US puppet, and this was done to make the US occupation even more unpopular and increase support for Sadr.

This is also why the real number of American soldiers killed is not reported. Ofcourse in most wars Governments try to claim that fewer soldiers have been kill than the enemy claims, however in this war the USA has been minimising the casualty reports like no other. The Army of Rashideen (Jaysharrashedeen, one of the Islamic yet nationalist resistance groups in Iraq) made a documentary where they gave examples of how the US casualties were not reported, and even when the resistance filmed their attacks the mainstream media (and even aljazeera) tried their best not to tell the truth about the number of dead Americans. As an example there was one attack where the Army of Rashideen themselves killed 4 Americans, but the western media and even alJazeera claimed that only 1 soldier was killed !!

The resistance groups such as the Army of Rashideen claim that over 30,000 American soldiers have actually been killed and they see the numbers given by the US Government as a joke. In their documentary film the Army of Rashideen put forward an intresting question. They asked Bush how is he going to cover up so many deaths ? They found this cover up very strange as the US is actually claiming the number of American soldiers killed to be less than 10% than what it really is.

So why is this happening ? And why also does the mainstream media seem to completely ignore Afghanistan and hardly ever report the American casualties there ? Many people in the west are actually under the impression that very little is going on in Afghanistan, this is while American soldiers themselves say that the war in Afghanistan is far more serious and far deadlier than the war in Iraq.

What's happening is again part of the conspiracy. The US Government would eventually have to report the true number of casualties, or at least they would have to reveal more than 10%, but they have planned to do this only after Sadr rises up. In other words they plan that when Sadr rises up they would suddenly claim that 20 or 30 thousand American troops have been killed - supposedly all of them by Sadr's "Mahdi Army". Then when people in the west hear of this there would be an uproar and bigger protests. Bush would then have an excuse to pull out of Iraq, making it seem as if Sadr and his Army have suddenly risen up and gained an amazing victory.

The US would then claim that those American soldiers who were really killed in Afghanistan were actually transfered to Iraq and were killed there by the "mahdi army" ! The tens of thousands of soldiers who have been killed by al-Qaeda, Ansar Sunnah, Army of Rashideen and other Sunni resistance groups would all be attributed to Sadr.

In other words the plan is that Sadr and his army would rise up after the defeat of the Sunni resistance. Then the western Media and the Governments would claim that the "Mahdi Army" have gained amazing victories and have killed thousands of American soldiers in a short while, when in reality there would be very little real fighting.

The US would then pull out of Iraq, supposedly defeated by the Moqtada al-Sadr.

 

However one thing happened which the US was not predicting, and that wasthat religious Sunni Muslims formed their own groups which turned out to be far more powerfull than Sadr's "Mahdi army", even though the "Mahdi army" had more members.

Ofcourse the US knew very well that Sunnis are going to rise up, what they didnt predict was that they would be so strong and would hold up such a great resistance.

At first the US just tried to destroy these Sunni "insurgents" but their own forces suffered instead. The conspirators who had planned these wars were now terrified because if these Sunnis managed to defeat the US then they would be seen as the heroes of Iraq and all their plans would be ruined.

So then we saw how the Government of Iraq was changed and made to look more religious and Shiah clerics were included in the Government. The New Iraqi Government then became popular among many Shiahs in Iraq and so more people joined the "Iraqi National Army".

Now the US forces didnt have to worry about the Sunni "insurgents" defeating them, because the National Army were there to take some of the casualties.

In order to encourage more people to join the National Army, the US and the New Iraqi Government bombed civilian areas, murdering men women and children, and then blaming it on the Sunni "insurgents", especially al-Qaeda.

However, even al-Qaeda denied these charges but ofcourse their voice is hardly ever heard. The Shiah clerics such as "Ayatullah" Ali Sistani and even the Iranian Government repeated the lie of the Americans and the New Iraqi Government, accusing so called "Sunni extremists" and al-Qaeda for these attacks on mosques and schools.

Sistani even went as far as calling upon his followers to join the National Army to fight the "terrorists" and so many more people joined the National Army seeking to take "revenge" from the Sunnis "insurgency".

Things were now going well for the conspirators, but the Sunni "insurgents" had taken over some of the key locations in Iraq including Fallujah.

The conspirators wanted to completely destroy the Sunni "insurgents" and they were not willing to take any chances so they bombed Fallujah and other areas controled by Sunni resistance groups without mercy. They even use illegal Chemical bombs including White Phosphorus. These bombs killed off entire peoples and compltely destroyed some areas. Thousands and thousands of Sunni civilians were killed in these bombings which were meant to completely finish off the Sunni resistance and give way to Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi army".

But instead of being annihilated, the "insurgents"/resistance simply went underground, as explained by the leader of Jaysh ar-Raashideen (one of the main resistance groups). He stated that afterwards the resistance became even stronged and harder to fight because now the US didnt know where they are while the resistance knew where the Americans are.

And so the Sunni resistance continued and Sadr was forced to tell his forces to stop fighting the Americans, and this is why: If you study what Moqtada al-Sadr has been doing, u will see that he has been constantly calling upon his followers to stop fighting the occupation. Every time his forces go into a battle with the Americans or the British or the Government, he immediately calls for a ceasefire.

Most of his followers have no idea what is going on. He is actually telling them to stop fighting because he wants the Americans to get rid of the Sunni resistance first. When their job is done, he is meant to come out and play the part of the hero.

However it was not enough for him to convince his followers not to fight the occupation, he even went as far as calling upon his followers to help the occupation!!! This he claimed was to fight against the "bigger enemy" which was al-Qaeda !!! This was because now the Government was handed over to religious Shiahs, so Sadr could claim that he is defending "Muslims" from "Nasibis" ("Nasibi" is a term Shiahs use against Sunnis whenever they want to fight against them).

The "Mahdi Army" then teamed up with the Iraqi National Army, fighting against the Sunni resistance groups !! They even protected the British forces in Basrah as reported by Peter Oborne in his documentary (Iraq Reckoning).

So what kind of "resistance force" are they ??? If you look at what these guys have been up to for the past 3 or 4 years, you will be amazed to see that the mainstream media still trie to portray them as an "insurgency" and how Moqtada al-Sadr still talks big as if he is USA's main enemy, when in reality he has been helping the occupation.

Strangely, Moqtada al-Sadr cant decide wether he supports the New Iraqi Government or not. One day he joins his forces with them, the next day he talks big about bringing down the Government.

The reason why he looks so st**id now is that he has been waiting for too long, and this is because the Americans have failed to destroy the Sunni resistance. He is meant to be an anti-Government anti-occupation religious hero, but his actions have proven the opposite.

He is still lying in wait for the time when his illuminati/Rosicrucian masters tell him to rise up against the occupation. Now that a religious Shiah government has been installed in Iraq part of the plan is already accomplished, except that the conspirators didnt want shiahs to look like American puppets, which is why they have kept Sadr.

But just incase the Sunni resistance continues to stand tall, they are going to have to stay content with a pro-American, yet "religious" Shiah Government (So long as Iran is allied to them, and so long as Iran is seen as a religious anti-American Government, the New Iraqi Government could also hope to be portrayed as anti-American one day. In other words they can later pretend to have sided with Iran rather than the USA, when in reality they have always been working with both Iran and the USA).

During the past few years many Sunni resistance groups have grown suspicious of Sadr. Some have even found proof that his men were working secretly with the Americans. No not just Al-Qaeda, but other Sunni resistance groups like Ansar-Sunnah and Jaysha Abi Bakr have arrested and executed close friends of Moqtada al-Sadr and high ranks in the "Mahdi Army", who were seen working closely with the Americans.

Also the leader of the Islamic Army of Iraq stated in an interview with al-Jazeera that the "Mahdi Army" should decide which side they are on (as they are sometimes working with the occupation).

The Ansar Sunnah also made a documentary film where they showed how the Americans attacked certain areas, destroyed every single household, except the Shiah ones.

In one particular village, there was one Shiah family living among many Sunni families. All Sunni families in that area were killed off by the Americans, but the Shiah family and their house were left untouched!! The Americans are obviously working for the same people who control Sadr, which is why they are ordered to destroy the Sunni population of Iraq thus increasing the Shiah percentage and thus giving the majority of Iraqis only two choices: New Iraqi Government or Sadr.

 

Recently Sadr has been trying to win over support by pretending to be a nationalist and thuse portraying himself as an opponent of Iran !!! Nothing can be further from the truth. Most if not all of Sadr's weapons have been given to him by Iran and infact Iran is even sending men to Iraq to join the "mahdi army" and also the pro-American "Badr brigade". The Sunni resistance group Ansar Sunnah even captured an Iranian member of Sadr's army after fighting and defeating a group of fighters from the "Mahdi army". The Iranian hostage had even been given equipment by Iran and was sent to Iraq by the Iranian Government itself.

As time is passing by the plans of the Kuffar are being exposed, because as Allah Subhana Ta'ala says:

 

"Although they plan, Allah also plans. And Allah is the Best of Planners." [Holy Qur'an 8:30]




Replies:
Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 28 January 2007 at 2:22pm
Sawtul, at first I thought you'd misplaced this article and that it
should actually be under "Humour".

However, I don't think you're entirely wrong about Sadr, you just
have no idea about what's going on and so you paint it all in colours
you can recognize which are the colours of Sunni versus Shiia.
Everybody, even newcomers, know you are here to stir up distrust
and hatred among Moslems. In this way, you are serving well the
purpose of the Bush propaganda machine which aims to divide
Muslims everywhere: it's called 'divide and conquer' and we know
what you're up to.

There is no doubt the US forces are supporting Shiias, but this is only
going to last as long as it suits them. They can change colour quicker
than a chameleon as you would know if you read. Sadr is a haunted
and hunted man, he has no reason to trust either Iraqis or
Americans, and he is not st**id enough to expect the Americans to
support him come what may.

Your insistence on a secret 'complot' between Iran, the US, probably
Turkey and Israel, shows a profound ignorance of the political Grand
Game. Since you are dedicated to merely turning Moslem against
Moslem (along with most of the Western world, led by Bush and his
Neo-Zio-Con madhouse) this is as far as you can see. The truth is
actually far simpler: religion is being used as part of the weapon in
the arsenal of the Washington Cartel. All you are doing, as Whisper
has already diagnosed, is serving them.

You may find this interesting, by Mike Whitney, from the information
clearing house:

"The (predominantly) Shiite militias operating out of the Interior
Ministry were armed and trained by the CIA and were used to secretly
to carry out assassinations and torture of suspected “Sunni
insurgents.” In his recent article “The Battle of Baghdad”, Chris
Sanders expands on this point:

“Even more important is the fact that it has been the Americans in
the form of one Colonel James Steel, who, reporting to then
ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, oversaw the training of the
Shia death squads a.k.a. “security forces” that have been turned
loose on the Sunni population, a project called the “Salvador Option”.
This is not a civil war…so much as deliberate mayhem incited, aided
and abetted by the occupying power with the objective of forcing the
disintegration of the country.”

There’s nothing new in Sander’s observations although they are
scrupulously omitted in the mainstream press. The Bush
administration set out to apply its neoconservative theories in Iraq by
deliberately destroying the social fabric of Iraqi society so they could
rebuild the country according to their “free market” neoliberal
ideology. The neocon principle of “creative destruction” was used
with lethal precision and with devastating effects; the country is now
in a state of total ruin.

The Pentagon’s counterinsurgency strategy was developed long
before the mutilated bodies of Sunni men began showing up daily
bobbing along the Euphrates River. It’s part of a broader plan to
dominate the entire region through military force. The purpose is to
extend the Bush Caliphate--the “new world order”-- throughout the
entire Middle East.

Somewhere along the line, things went horribly wrong and the
Pentagon warlords lost control of their “brainchild” in the Interior
Ministry. Now the Shiite death squads operate independent of their
American overlords purging Baghdad of its Sunni population and
laying the foundation for a future Islamic state. Events are simply
beyond Bush’s control. As author William Lind said recently, “The
forces our invasion and destruction of the Iraqi state unleashed, far
overpower any army we can deploy to Iraq, surge or no surge.”


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 28 January 2007 at 7:50pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

No, the truth is something else. The US didnt invade Iran because they dont even want to invade Iran, and infact, as I have explained on another thread, Iran and USA are secretly working together:

Now consider that the US and Iran are only pretending to be enemies and then we can think about the real reason why the US invaded Iraq.

 working together, pretenfing to be enemies

"The US didn't invade Iran" ??? of course they didn't, they haven't (as yet)

Long post & still no answer as to why invade iraq  well except oil



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: ak_m_f
Date Posted: 28 January 2007 at 9:20pm
sawtul shay'tan is a zionist agent; he is here to sow the seeds to sectarian violence & to divide muslim.

Its sad to see this talent getting wasted on IC, I will give her majesty a call right now; they can sure use his talent in Iraq & Afghanistan.


-------------


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 28 January 2007 at 11:13pm
Originally posted by Duende


 The neocon principle of “creative destruction” was used
with lethal precision and with devastating effects; the country is now
in a state of total ruin.



This is straight out of prophet of politics Machiavelli's basic instructions, checkout "Prince"



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 03 February 2007 at 10:14am

Originally posted by Angel

Long post & still no answer as to why invade iraq  well except oil

Yes there is. I wrote:


"I have no doubt that Moqtada al-Sadr was meant to be the Nasrallah of Iraq. In other words, the plan was that he would rise up against the US, and the US would then leave all of a sudden. Sadr would then be seen as the hero and saviour of Iraq, and with Saddam gone, he would take over Iraq and eventually hand it over to Iran."

 

This is because they want to hand over the middle east to Iran, whom they control through their agents, the "ayatullahs".

For those of you who think Iran is a real enemy of the West, all you need to do is go to Iran and look around. You will see Israeli Zionist companies and products, including Coca Cola which "donates" 5 million dollars a year to Israel.



-------------


Posted By: wafi
Date Posted: 03 February 2007 at 11:04am

No, the real enemy of menkind is not Iran, is not the US ...

but infact is intolerance, money and missionary of all kind of religions or ideologies. Why it should be impossible that everybody lives his life in the way he want to live, and to realize that this freedom ends when touching the freedom of the next?   

Tell me please ... where is the problem that Zionists live their life? Are you afraid of Coca Cola? Nobody ask you to drink it. Btw... I do not know why Coca Cola should be in contact with Zionists, but that does not matter because everybody can decide for himselfe if drinking Coke or not. So please tell me where the problem is?



Posted By: Daniel Dworsky
Date Posted: 03 February 2007 at 2:35pm
Hallooo Germany!!!



The 'problem' is when Zionism comes at the expense of the Palestinian
people. Israel is nice but I think that after the war we should have gotten a
nice chunk (if not all) of the Rhineland. Cheap shot - I know. I'm just
teasing! Hows the peace business going?


Posted By: wafi
Date Posted: 03 February 2007 at 3:01pm

peace buisness ... hm... looking at the news of today from Bagdad, I would say worst. Think a lot of people in Germany are afraid of what`s going on in Iran, Irak, Afghanistan, but also Palestina, Israel, Lebanon, Dafur, Somalia .... Main problem is, to understand US hegemonial politics with a more or less silly leader is one side, but to understand the different parties involved like Sunits or Shiits, Hezsbollah etc ... is more or less impossible. Main risk I see today that "simple" answers are given and people happy with simple answers ... but it`s more complex.

And expenses of the Palestinian .... which Palestinian? Hamas or Fatach? Or odenary Palestinians? Think, this question is as well complex ... as most other questions and I for myselfe have to realize that politics of Israel is as worst as politics of Palestina and I`m not able to answer the question who`s wrong and who`s right. But one thing I know, it`s wrong to kill anybody, but both or more sides are just keeping on killing people ... so maybe each side is wrong.

 Yeah ... what to say ... In my point of view we have to come together to stop killing, to have a world wide disarmemend and to learn toleranz and ... may be the main point to learn that each men or women has equal rigths to live, to love and to believe, whatever they want to believe.

 

 I red your HP .. and would say, best regards to you

 

Peter



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 2:38pm

 "Gates: Bombs tie Iran to Iraq extremists "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates

------------------------------------------------------------ ------

 

See how the Western Government's are delibrately trying to portray Iran as helping the Iraqi resistance when in reality Iran is helping the Occupation forces and the puppet Government.

Anyone who has independently researched the situation in Iraq would know that Iran is arming, funding and morally supporting the puppet Government as well as the Shia Death Squads, especially the Badr Brigade.

These Death squads do NOT fight the occupation, and what they actually do is kill Religious Sunni Muslims (especially the resistance) so they are actually helping the occupation, at least indirectly.

There have ofcourse also been cases where these death squads have fought hand in hand along with the US forces against the Sunni "insurgency".

But every once in a while we see western politicians including Bush accusing Iran of helping the insurgents/resistance. They are trying to decieve us, as I already explained.

Ofcourse the mainstream Media would have us believe that the reason why politicians are accusing Iran is so that the US would have an excuse to invade Iran. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

The US is also delibrately accusing Iran of making WMDs, which may be true, but they are only saying this because they know that after what happened in Iraq, no one would believe the same accusation made against Iran.  In other words what they are actually doing is that they are making excuses to NOT invade Iran, without people becoming suspicious.

USA and Iran = Two sides of the same coin



-------------


Posted By: Hanan
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 4:24pm

Brother Sawtul, you wrote: "I have no doubt that Moqtada al-Sadr was meant to be the Nasrallah of Iraq. In other words, the plan was that he would rise up against the US, and the US would then leave all of a sudden. Sadr would then be seen as the hero and saviour of Iraq, and with Saddam gone, he would take over Iraq and eventually hand it over to Iran."

Am I to believe that the secret plan between Moqtada al-Sadr and the US government WAS that he should pretend to be an enemy of the U.S., that he should kill U.S.- and coalition soldiers, which then would scare (just pretend scare) the Americans into leaving Iraq?

Tell me, Brother, what happened? US forces are still in Iraq, Moqtada is still not president, and Ahmedinijad is still busy denying the Holocaust. Did time stand still while I was gone? Was there a change of plan?

“Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”

Peace, Hanan



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 7:47pm

Assalamu 'alaykum wa Rahmatullah

I already explained on my first post on this thread.

 The original plan was for Sadr to take over, the back up plan is a (supposedly) "religious" New Iraqi Government which would (despite being "religious") be on the American side.

 The new Iraqi Government became "religious" because the Americans were being defeated by the "insurgency" and needed more help. Since most Iraqis are Shiahs the new Iraqi Government (which is mainly Shiah) was made to appear more religious so that:

1: More people would join the National Army

2: Sadr could side with the National Army and the Government whenever needed, saying "Im helping our Shiah brothers to fight the evil Nasibis (Sunnis)".

As long as the Sunni insurgency/resistance remains strong, the original plan cannot be implemented. The conspirators prefer the original plan ofcourse, but their back up plan can go back to the original if they manage to destroy the Sunni resistance.

This is why to this day Sadr Still pretends to oppose the Government, even though sometimes he sides with them and sends his militia to defend the Government !!!

He is still pretending to oppose them at times because if the Americans and their allies succeed in destroying the Sunni resistance, he can rise up and carry out the original plan.

This is also why George Bush refuses to set a date for US to pull out of Iraq. Bush constantly says that he is going to stay until they win - in reality he wants to stay until they Lose (to Sadr) but they dont know when they are going to go through with the plan as they do not know when (or even if) they would succeed in defeating the Sunni resistance.

 Hence it is impossible for the conspirators to set a date for pulling out of Iraq, as they want to make it seem like the US forces were suddenly defeated by Sadr.

But if the US is finally forced to leave Iraq (by Really being defeated), or if Sadr's militias are destroyed or seriously weakened by Sunni forces, then they would have no choice but to continue with the back up plan.

And the back up plan is that the New Iraqi Government would continue working for the US, but later, shortly after the Americans leave Iraq, they would side with Iran and appear to become anti-American (they may then claim that they worked with the US due to "political reasons" and that they always opposed them but pretended to be on their side for the "greater good").

Then the New Iraqi Government would join Iran, and Iran would send their army to Iraq to destroy the remaining Sunni resistance.

The back up plan is ofcourse far less convincing and is not helpful in giving Shiahs a heroic face. The original plan is tried and tested in Lebanon where it seems to work well.

Insha'allah, both plans will fail.



-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 09 February 2007 at 9:07pm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/burned-alive-savage-twist-in-revenge-attack/2006/11/25/1164341452050.html?from=rss - http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/burned-alive-savage-twis t-in-revenge-attack/2006/11/25/1164341452050.html?from=rss

Steven Hurst, Baghdad
November 26, 2006

REVENGE-seeking militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left prayers and burned them alive with kerosene in a savage new twist to the brutality shaking Baghdad.

The attack in the Iraqi capital on Friday came a day after suspected Sunni insurgents killed more than 200 people in Baghdad's main Shiite district.

Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mehdi Army militia, said police Captain Jamil Hussein.

He said in subsequent attacks at least 19 other Sunnis were killed, including women and children, in the same area, the volatile Hurriyah district in north-west Baghdad.

Most of the thousands of dead bodies that have been found dumped across Baghdad and other cities in central Iraq in recent months have been of victims who were tortured and then shot to death, according to police.

The suspected militia killers often have used electric drills on their captives' bodies before killing them. The bodies are frequently decapitated.

But burning victims alive introduced a new method of brutality that was likely to be reciprocated by the other sect as the Shiites and Sunnis continue killing one another in unprecedented numbers.

The gruesome attack, which came despite a curfew in Baghdad, capped a day in which at least 87 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence throughout Iraq.

In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Captain Hussein said.

Residents of the troubled district claim the Mehdi Army has begun kidnapping and holding Sunni hostages to use in ritual slaughter at the funerals of Shiite victims of Baghdad's raging sectarian war.

President Jalal Talabani emerged from lengthy meetings with other Iraqi leaders yesterday and said the Defence Minister, Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi, indicated that the Hurriyah neighbourhood had been quiet throughout the day.

But Imad al-Hasimi, a Sunni elder in Hurriyah, confirmed Captain Hussein's account of the immolations. He told Al-Arabiya television he saw people who were drenched in kerosene and then set afire, burning to death before his eyes.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni organisation in Iraq, said even more victims were burned to death in attacks on the four mosques.

It claimed a total of 18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque.

The extreme violence continued to tear at Iraq's social fabric even after the Government had banned pedestrians and cars from the streets and closed the international airport until further notice in anticipation of a storm of retaliation for the five bombings and two mortar rounds, which killed 215 in Sadr City on Thursday.

The airport closure forced Mr Talabani to delay his planned weekend departure for Tehran for meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian leader also invited Syrian President Bashar Assad, but it now appeared he would not attend.

The chaos also cast a shadow over the Amman, Jordan, summit this week between Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US President George Bush.

Politicians loyal to radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened to boycott parliament and the cabinet if Mr Maliki went ahead with the meeting.

The political bloc, known as Sadrists, is a mainstay of support for Mr Maliki. The Mehdi Army is the organisation's armed wing.

In Sadr City, cleanup crews continued removing the remains of the dead from wreckage of the car bombs, and tents were erected throughout the ramshackle district for relatives to receive condolences.

Hundreds of men, women and children beat their chests, chanted and cried as they walked beside vehicles carrying the caskets of their loved ones toward the holy Shiite city of Najaf for burial.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------

 

As you can see, the New Iraqi Government try to defend Sadr (their supposed "enemy") by denying that anything had happened:

" Defence Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi indicated the Hurriyah neighbourhood had been quiet throughout the day."

This is because in reality, the puppet Government and Sadr are on the same side.

Intrestingly, the Americans also confirmed what the Defence Minister of the New Iraqi Government said ! (So the Americans are also trying to cover up Sadr's crimes against Sunni civilians).

No surprise here as the Western Media as a whole did their best not to report any of the attrocities committed by Sadr and the Death squads during the first few years of the war.

What most people do not know is that the Sunni resistance only fought back and reacted against the Shiah allies of the US, after the horrific attrocities committed by the National Army, the Death Squads and "Mahdi army" against Sunni civilians.

The Western Media managed to make things seem the other way around by portraying the Shiah death squads as a reaction to Sunni "terrorism"!

Even today the mainstream media report as little as possible about the death squads and what little they report is due to the fact that numerous independent reporters have already reported it (as the death squads are very well known and their attrocities very often seen in Iraq) and it is impossible now for the mainstream media to remain completely silent over this issue, so they make a little mention of it once in a while.



-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 15 February 2007 at 2:27pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

 

Again, the same old rubbish "Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents".

"President Bush said Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq"

Yeah right! Intrestingly he then said that he is NOT going to attack Iran !

Then.... why did he make this accusation to begin with ?? This is while it is a CLEAR fact that Iran is actually allied to the "new iraqi government" and HELPING the occupation by sending Shiah Death Squads such as the "Badr brigades" to Iraq to KILL the "insurgents", rather than "help" them.

The only supposed "insurgent/resistance" group that Iran funds and arms is the "Mahdi Army" who have been seen HELPING THE OCCUPATION and fighting against Real resistance groups.

What the conspirators are trying to do is to make Iran popular among anti-american Muslims as I've already explained on this and other threads. This is all part of the original and back-up plan which I've already mentioned.

 

 



-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 15 February 2007 at 7:28pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

"WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq."

 

Oh...so Bush "cant" invade Iran ... he really really wants to... but he just cant...

I guess the Freemasonic American Government is just "too good" to let Bush invade Iran... so we have the good old American Government on one side, and Bush on the other...

But seriously this is again part of their plan. It's a long story but at the end of the day they want to blame everything on Bush and the Republicans, and then say it's ok for Iran and the Liberal party of the US to be allies because the Liberals were the "good guys"!!!

(This is the last part of their plan and is to happen long after the take over of Iraq by Iran.)



-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 15 March 2007 at 4:49pm

Al Sadr Fled Iraq, Fearing U.S. Bombs

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953 - http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953

------------------------------------------------------------ ---

So why did he leave Iraq? The above links says because he was scared of US forces. The truth however is that Sadr left Iraq as soon as the Sunni Resistance intensified their attacks against Sadr's so called "Mahdi army".

The Sunnis in Iraq have formed what they call The Islamic State of Iraq which consists of some of the strongest Sunni (including Salafi) resistance groups who are trying to take over Iraq.

Shortly before Sadr left Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq reported that they had killed over 1500 members of Sadr's "Mahdi Army" within less than 2 months !!!

Then what happens ? Bush sends 21000 more troops to Iraq and Sadr leaves Iraq for Iran.

What really happened was that Sadr's forces were being defeated by Sunni forces, and as I have explained, Sadr's army is the most important part of this whole Illuminati/rosicrucian conspiracy.

So just as Sadr's forces were suffering heavy casualties, the US sent 21000 more troops to take their place. As I have already explained, Sadr's forces have been helping the occupation by fighting against the Sunni resistance. Without them the Sunni resistance would have a much easier time against the US and the puppet "New Iraqi Government".

So Sadr was losing and wanted to stop fighting as he feared his forces may be destroyed and he himself may soon be killed so the USA (his secret ally) sent 21000 more troops to fill in for him.

In other words, the reason why Bush sent these troops to Iraq (despite all the controversy) was to protect Sadr's forces and save them from the Sunni Resistance, particularly the Islamic State of Iraq.

When Sadr left Iraq, fleeing from the Sunni resistance, the Media tried to make it seem as if he was escaping from US forces, thus continuing to portray him as USA's enemy.

Intrestingly, Sadr who helped the invasion by fighting against the Sunni resistance, and who even protected occupation forces in Basrah, is now being protected by the QUDS force (who are a group in Iran controled by Khamenehi leader of Iran).

This is while Bush claimed that the Quds force are "arming the insurgency in Iraq" !!!

So who were the Quds force of Iran really arming ?

They were arming Sadr.

And what was Sadr doing?

He was helping the occupation!

 This proves what I said on my earlier posts on this thread (that Iran is not really helping the Resistance but are infact helping the occupation - not to mention the Death squads).

 

The face of hypocrasy

 



-------------


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 16 March 2007 at 7:44am
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

Bizzarrreeeeeee

Sawtul, All your logics and evidences are against your conclusions. Isnt it weird !!! Recycle your brain please. I mean your thought process.........

Can you tell, where the sunnis & Al-Qaida in Iraq gets their supplies? Why they have no complains against Iran?

Salam



-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 16 March 2007 at 10:32am

QUOTE=nu001]

Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

Bizzarrreeeeeee

Please dont misquote.

Originally posted by nu001

Can you tell, where the sunnis & Al-Qaida in Iraq gets their supplies? Why they have no complains against Iran?

 

1: They make some of them themselves (especially the explosives)

2: Saddam allowed Weapons to be sold in Iraq before the invasion.

3: Iraq's military bases were raided by those who later formed the resistance groups

4: They take their enemies weapons from them after killing them (war booty).

 

The one place where they DONT get weapons from is Iran.

And you say they have no complains about Iran ??? Dont talk about things you dont know. Read this :

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html

Hizbullah chief http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Hassan Nasrallah has been branded a "worshipper of idols, an agent of the anti-Christ," and "charlatan" by Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir in a statement made earlier this month, the full text of which has now become available. The message, which also contained threats to blow up the White House, forms another escalation in al-Qaeda's increasingly hostile anti-Iranian rhetoric, that has also targeted http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Hizbullah . Discussing the actions of US President Bush, Muhajir said in the statement, released by al-Qaeda's al-Furqan Foundation, translated into English by the Al-Boraq Workshop, and reproduced on the Jihad http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - unspun website:

"He (Bush) turned to the Sham ( http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Syria and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Lebanon ) and terrorized its tyrant (Basher Assad), who is a Rafidi (Shiite) and a Nusayri (one of Shiite's factions). The blockade continued until he (Assad) had to open his country to hundreds and thousands of Persians to acquire citizenship in it, (so the they can) support the charlatan agent of the anti-Christ, Nasr Allat (a common nickname for Hizbullah's Nasrallah, and meaning a supporter and worshipper of Idols) who is called Nasrallah..."

"Hence, the Old Persian Empire has become complete, extending from the countries behind the river, Iran and Iraq… to the Sham (Syria and Lebanon)," Muhajir said.

The al-Qaeda leader said the United States had become an agent for Iran. "I wonder whether the wise of Romans (Americans) realize that they have become slaves and mercenaries for Persia, and that they are fighting Persia's battles for free," he said.

On November 17, Sunni al-Qaeda followers in Lebanon released a statement on the internet calling on Lebanese Sunnis to prepare for an imminent confrontation http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - .

According to the SITE Institute http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - , a website which monitors Islamist web activity, the statement also said:"Let the Rafidi (Shiites) know that we are ready to fight them with Allah's help and let it be a war. We are more eager for it than they." Islamic State declared in Iraq

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda in Iraq has declared the establishment of a Caliphate (Islamic State), in anticipation of the withdrawal of US troops from the region.

-----------------------------------------------------

I think this is proof enough that al-Qaeda are against Iran. Also I explained that there are other groups in Iraq who are also against Iran on my earlier posts, such as ANSAR SUNNAH, ARMY OF ABU BAKR, ARMY OF RASHIDEEN and other Sunni resistance groups.

Everything I say can be proven, wether you believe or not.



-------------


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 16 March 2007 at 9:51pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

1: They make some of them themselves (especially the explosives)

2: Saddam allowed Weapons to be sold in Iraq before the invasion.

3: Iraq's military bases were raided by those who later formed the resistance groups

4: They take their enemies weapons from them after killing them (war booty).

Everything I say can be proven, wether you believe or not.

Do you think they can fight on booty & hand made explosives? They are loosing more than they are getting. They need a factory for amunition & small arms. They must have some external source for buying & shipping it. Which is only possible through Iran/syria; Unless US army supplies them from Saudi/Kuwait or in Iraq.

Your ref is a third party quote. Al Qaida accused All Saudi/Pak/Egypt/Jordan etc many times in their tapes and web sites.

Salam



-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 19 March 2007 at 3:51pm

 

Originally posted by nu001

Al Qaida accused All Saudi/Pak/Egypt/Jordan etc many times in their tapes and web sites.

What's your point ??? All of these Governements are allied to the United States and Iran.

Originally posted by nu001

Do you think they can fight on booty & hand made explosives? They are loosing more than they are getting. They need a factory for amunition & small arms. They must have some external source for buying & shipping it. Which is only possible through Iran/syria; Unless US army supplies them from Saudi/Kuwait or in Iraq.

I didnt say just booty and hand made, they also use the weapons left over from Saddam's regime. It is also a fact that they make explosives and many of them have even filmed themselves while doing so. I dont know why you try to imply as if I only mentioned 2 sources while I actually mentioned 4.

This is Ala al-Maliki, a close friend of Muqtada al-Sadr and member of "Mahdi Army" who was arrested and executed by the Sunni Kurdish group called Ansar Sunnah.

Ansar Sunnah claim that he was secretly working with the Americans and assassinating Sunni resistance leaders with their help !

This is just more evidence that the so called "Mahdi Army", the supposed "Shiah Resistance" armed and funded by Iran is in reality working with the Occupation forces.

So again, it is not just al-Qaeda who have found evidence, many other groups have also concluded that the "Shia resistance" armed and funded by Iran and the "Quds force" are imposters who are helping the occupation.

 

And here are a few interesting pictures that confirm what I said about Sadr being the Nasrallah of Iraq:

(Nasrallah is also an imposter, read : http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007&PN=10&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007& ;PN=10&TPN=1  )

 



Posted By: .:: SoHaIB ::.
Date Posted: 24 March 2007 at 2:06pm
I didn't read all that man cuz we all know America attacked Iraq just for oil but what DID we do about it ? what ARE we doing about it ?......Nuthing except whining about the Americans while our brothers and sisters are getting killed over there and around the world. I am doing the same thing as u whining, every1 knowz what happened but they didn't have the courage to stop it but we do have the guts to talk about it ????.... thats not fair man

-------------


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 24 March 2007 at 4:48pm

Originally posted by .:: SoHaIB ::.

I didn't read all that man cuz we all know America attacked Iraq just for oil

?????



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 27 March 2007 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

 The original plan was for Sadr to take over, the back up plan is a (supposedly) "religious" New Iraqi Government which would (despite being "religious") be on the American side.

 The new Iraqi Government became "religious" because the Americans were being defeated by the "insurgency" and needed more help. Since most Iraqis are Shiahs the new Iraqi Government (which is mainly Shiah) was made to appear more religious so that:

1: More people would join the National Army

2: Sadr could side with the National Army and the Government whenever needed, saying "Im helping our Shiah brothers to fight the evil Nasibis (Sunnis)".

As long as the Sunni insurgency/resistance remains strong, the original plan cannot be implemented. The conspirators prefer the original plan ofcourse, but their back up plan can go back to the original if they manage to destroy the Sunni resistance.

This is why to this day Sadr Still pretends to oppose the Government, even though sometimes he sides with them and sends his militia to defend the Government !!!

He is still pretending to oppose them at times because if the Americans and their allies succeed in destroying the Sunni resistance, he can rise up and carry out the original plan.

This is also why George Bush refuses to set a date for US to pull out of Iraq. Bush constantly says that he is going to stay until they win - in reality he wants to stay until they Lose (to Sadr) but they dont know when they are going to go through with the plan as they do not know when (or even if) they would succeed in defeating the Sunni resistance.

 Hence it is impossible for the conspirators to set a date for pulling out of Iraq, as they want to make it seem like the US forces were suddenly defeated by Sadr.

But if the US is finally forced to leave Iraq (by Really being defeated), or if Sadr's militias are destroyed or seriously weakened by Sunni forces, then they would have no choice but to continue with the back up plan.

And the back up plan is that the New Iraqi Government would continue working for the US, but later, shortly after the Americans leave Iraq, they would side with Iran and appear to become anti-American (they may then claim that they worked with the US due to "political reasons" and that they always opposed them but pretended to be on their side for the "greater good").

Then the New Iraqi Government would join Iran, and Iran would send their army to Iraq to destroy the remaining Sunni resistance.

The back up plan is ofcourse far less convincing and is not helpful in giving Shiahs a heroic face. The original plan is tried and tested in Lebanon where it seems to work well.

Insha'allah, both plans will fail.

 

Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And if the disbelievers gain success, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?

So Allah shall Judge between you on the day of resurrection, and Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.

(Qur'an: Surah Nisa: 141)

 

ALLAHU AKBAR

These are exactly the two things planned by Iran today.

Those who wait = Moqtada al-Sadr and his so called "Mahdi Army" who are WAITING and not fighting the occupation, while claiming to support the resistance.

If the Iraqi Sunni Resistance succeeds, they plan to say "were we not with not with you?" (They will say they were part of the resistance).

 



Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 27 March 2007 at 8:13pm

Doesn't make sense, How can you say that it's Iran and not SA, Egypt, Jordan or you?

At the moment; there is all the reason to believe that Iran is on the right side.

Others (SA, Egypt, Jordan etc) are openly on US side. So There is no chance to be on the right side, if you are with them.

 



-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 11 April 2007 at 2:09pm
Originally posted by nu001

Doesn't make sense, How can you say that it's Iran and not SA, Egypt, Jordan or you?

At the moment; there is all the reason to believe that Iran is on the right side.

Others (SA, Egypt, Jordan etc) are openly on US side. So There is no chance to be on the right side, if you are with them.

 

Who said anything about supporting Saudi Arabia and Egypt or Jordan. Incase you didnt know, Iran is allied to these countries, so I dont know why you imply that these are two different sides.

And also, the Ayah applies to Sadr's so called "Mahdi Army" because it mentions the HYPOCRITES who seem like they want to fight and do Jihad, but they dont and instead they "wait". This is EXACTLY what Sadr has been doing.

The Ayah also says that these people would be helping the Kuffar and protecting them, and again as I have explained on my earlier posts, the "mahdi army" have been protecting occupation forces in Basrah and stabbing the Sunni resistance in the back.

 

Here is a video of Sadr where he confesses that his forces are to fight alongside the National Guards and Police force of the "new iraqi government" (which is set up, trained and funded by US forces):

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpTjJs7n0Rw



Posted By: mariyah
Date Posted: 12 April 2007 at 3:21am

Originally posted by Daniel Dworsky

Hallooo Germany!!!



The 'problem' is when Zionism comes at the expense of the Palestinian
people. Israel is nice but I think that after the war we should have gotten a
nice chunk (if not all) of the Rhineland. Cheap shot - I know. I'm just
teasing! Hows the peace business going?

Hiel Bush...



-------------
"Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile.


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 28 May 2007 at 3:13pm

Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

Here is more confirmation of what I've been saying on this thread:

http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=245 - http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=245

Here are some key points in this article:

Originally posted by

As splintered political factions, such as the Sadrists, seek to form a new coalition made up of Sunni parties, formerly exiled Shiite groups like Da'wa and the SIIC are facing new challenges in maintaining a dominant political bloc in Baghdad. Moqtada al-Sadr's call to create a "reform and reconciliation project," which would also include Sunnis, is a radical departure from his sectarian base which was formed with the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) and under the spiritual leadership of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2004

Notice it says Sadr wants to include Sunnis in the Government if he gains power in Iraq. Remember that I said that Sadr is there to decieve and fool the Sunni Muslims by becoming the "saviour" of Iraq.

Originally posted by

On entering Iraq after more than 20 years of exile in Iran in 2003, al-Hakim witnessed the rise of a major Shiite political rival, a young cleric named Moqtada al-Sadr, who would publicly question his bravery and Iraqi credentials for not only failing to stand up to Saddam, but also for being a foreign agent backed by the Iranian government.

But now Sadr is trying to pretend to be a "nationalist" and even an opponent of Iran!!! Even though it is a proven fact that Sadr has been armed and funded by the Iranian Government.

 Sadr is trying to appear as a nationalist since many Iraqis have realised that Iran has been helping the Occupation forces by sending death squads such as the Badr brigade to Iraq and by openly supporting the New Iraqi Government that was made by the United States.

So why is Iran funding and supporting both the "Mahdi army" led by Muqtada al-Sadr, AND the new Iraqi Government and its death squads including the Badr brigade???

The reason is given by Allah in the holy Qur'an:

Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And if the disbelievers gain success, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?

So Allah shall Judge between you on the day of resurrection, and Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.

(Qur'an: Surah Nisa: 141)

Allah tells us that the Monafiqeen (hypocrites) have TWO plans:

1: Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you?

2:And if the disbelievers gain success, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?

The Iranian Government are Monafiq (hypocrites) and that is why they have EXACTLY the two plans - which is why they are supporting both Sadr and the "New Iraqi Government".

If the resistance win, Sadr is going to come up and claim that he was part of the resistance and helping the Sunnis, so that he can gain power and decieve the true Muslims (Sunnis). He would call for "unity" and claim he has nothing against Sunnis (even though his group have been assassinating Sunni Mujahideen and even secretly helping the occupation as I've proven on my earlier posts on this thread.

And if the Occupation forces manage to destroy the Sunni resistance now, the New Iraqi Govenment and Badr brigade will continue ruling over Iraq and Sadr would then say to them: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?  (Remember that as Ive mentioned on my first post on this thread, it was reported that Sadrs' forces were DEFENDING occupation forces in southern Iraq from the Sunni resistance!!!).

Remember that both Sadr and the new Iraqi Govenment are Shiahs. They have the same ideology as Iran, they are both supported, funded and armed by Iran. The reason why they seem to have very different plans is that Iran is trying to create a win-win situation so that if the resistance are defeated, Shiahs would control Iraq, and if the resistance win, again Shiahs would take over Iraq (both Shiah groups having the same ideology as the Shiah Iranian Government!)

So these are their two plans. These two plans are the plans of the Monafiqeen, the hypocrites. These are the two plans of the Iranian Government and the Illuminatiwho control the Shiah Mullahs.

The original plan was that there would be absolutely no significant Sunni resistance. This plan failed due to Sunni and Salafi groups such as Tawhid Wal-Jihad, Islamic Army of Iraq and Ansar Sunnah.

When this happened, the planners (Iran, USA, France and other Illuminati Governments) had two choices left... and those are the two I've mentioned above (which Allah subahana Ta'ala foretold in the holy Qur'an).


 



Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 28 May 2007 at 8:17pm
Sawtul Khilafah
Senior Member
Senior%20Member
ASA/786
After all the yelling you received from other members here, what you have noted in your neighborhood, seems on the money. The problem with Muslims i.e., the Sunnies has been their flawed politically correct approach for longest period. The Shiits have been working all along with the colonial administrations in most countries and have ended up in control while the sunnies who were the original rulers of the colonial territories were kept outside by design.
In my personal experience have found them quite experts in duplicity and sycophancy to take advantage of situations. In US they were in the forefront to sponsor Bush's campaign for what ever gains they were looking for.
Being a very small minorities, figure what happened in two very important areas like Syria and Pakistan.



Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 29 May 2007 at 11:31am
It’s easy to cave in to Sawtul’s hate-filled conspiracy theories. His hatred
for Iran and Shi’ites is well recorded and totally blinds him from
considering anything NOT motivated by similar sentiments as his own.

Even I can see he has a point referring to Iran as the Monafiq, but it would
be very short sighted indeed to assume that all Shia were driven by some
inexplicable desire to unite with Iran. To believe the similarity of ideology
makes for some Pan-Arab Shia nation is politically naïve.

It’s at times like these the spectre of Sawtul’s early lies about his
provenance and whereabouts add to the confusion: why does he still
proclaim to be in Iran? And if he’s Iranian why does he show such
ignorance of the myriad political manouvers behind the scenes? What
does he know of the Hawza?

Sadr is more politically motivated than religious. He is not as highly
regarded in this sphere as Sistani, about whom we hear nothing from
Sawtul and his anti-Shia ravings. Isn’t it also possible that Iran is more
politically motivated (certainly more than any humanitarian concerns) in
its shady manipulation of various players?

There is no way America is in ‘secret’ collusion with Iran, who see (rightly
so) The Great Satan as its enduring enemy, and the Little Satan (the UK) as
its historical enemy. They do not want to see either manifestations of evil
on their doorstep, neither do they want to see any hand maidens of the
Satan in charge of Iraq. America is the far greater hypocrites, simply
biding time before they put in place their preference: Alawi, who will
happily oversee the so-called hydrocarbon law everything hinges on.

The Americans are waiting for the internal splits between the various Shia
factions to begin to manifest themselves. There has never been any plan,
guided by Iluminati or involving French governments or anybody else.
What’s going on now was impossible to plan, but the outcome the U.S
wants is far from the outcome the Iranians want. Both of them are
interested in the same thing, when it comes down to it: Iraqi oil deposits,
Iranian fields are in decline, therefore Iranian income and geopolitical
position is under threat.


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 1:09pm

Originally posted by Duende

It’s easy to cave in to Sawtul’s hate-filled conspiracy theories. 

When I say something will happen and it happens, it's no longer a "conspiracy theory", it's a conspiracy Fact (remember the "hezbullah or hezbushaytan?" thread).

Originally posted by Duende



Even I can see he has a point referring to Iran as the Monafiq, but it would
be very short sighted indeed to assume that all Shia were driven by some
inexplicable desire to unite with Iran. To believe the similarity of ideology
makes for some Pan-Arab Shia nation is politically naïve.

I didnt say all Shias, but these famous Shia groups that are being funded by Iran ("Hezbullah" "Mahdi Army" and "Badr brigade"). It's obvious that groups who are being funded and armed by Iran and some of whose members are Iranians are willing to unite with Iran. It's common sense.

Originally posted by Duende



It’s at times like these the spectre of Sawtul’s early lies about his
provenance and whereabouts add to the confusion:

I Never lied to anyone, but I delibrately didnt fill in my profile properly as I didnt want to be identified (as I've already explained so many times before).

Originally posted by Duende

And if he’s Iranian why does he show such
ignorance of the myriad political manouvers behind the scenes? What
does he know of the Hawza?

I know about the Hawzas of Iran/Qum and Iraq but I simply dont think that America's invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the minor differences between the Hawzas. 

Originally posted by Duende



Sadr is more politically motivated than religious. He is not as highly
regarded in this sphere as Sistani, about whom we hear nothing from
Sawtul and his anti-Shia ravings. 

Read my first post on this thread, I DID write about Sistani!

Originally posted by Duende


There is no way America is in ‘secret’ collusion with Iran, who see (rightly
so) The Great Satan as its enduring enemy, and the Little Satan (the UK) as
its historical enemy. They do not want to see either manifestations of evil
on their doorstep, neither do they want to see any hand maidens of the
Satan in charge of Iraq. America is the far greater hypocrites, simply
biding time before they put in place their preference: Alawi, who will
happily oversee the so-called hydrocarbon law everything hinges on.
 

  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8744&PN=3 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8744& ; ;PN=3  (Iran's reverse psychology) and http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924&PN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924& ; ;PN=2  

As for Allawi, he's long gone and I've explained the reason on the first post on this thread. When the Sunni resistance appeared Sadr had to stay back and when the Occupation forces and puppet Government were in trouble, they needed Sadr's help and in order for Sadr to have an excuse to help them they had to replace Allawi with "religious" Shias. But both the "religious" and Allawi are puppets/agents of the Occupation forces and wouldnt last a day without their protection and funding.

Originally posted by Duende



 There has never been any plan,
guided by Iluminati or involving French governments or anybody else.
What’s going on now was impossible to plan,

Incase you didnt read my posts, I said their original plan FAILED, though they are still trying to go for a similar plan which is for Sadr to unite with Sunni resistance groups (and since Sadr has a huge army, which were left unharmed by the occupation, he would eventually take over Iraq when the occupation forces leave, if the Sunni resistance foolishly agree to unite with him).

 



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 10 October 2007 at 6:06pm

Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

According to Abu Omar Baghdadi, the leader of one of the biggest anti-occupation Jihadist groups in Iraq, some of the insurgents (mainly the nationalists and those who have good relations with puppet Arab Governments) have agreed to change sides and actually help the occupation forces and their allies fight the Sunni "extremists", and in return the Americans have promised to help them fight the Shiah "Mahdi Army" of Moqtada al-Sadr.

This is very interseting for two reasons. First of all, this shows that the Americans have so far pretty much avoided fighting the "Mahdi Army"... which confirms what I've been saying on this and other threads (despite the "Mahdi Army" being portrayed as an actual resistance group).

Secondly, this shows that they are actually trying to go back to the original plan which I mentioned on my first post on this thread.

They have told these Sunni insurgents (who are mainly Baathists and nationalists) that if they help America destroy the religious groups (such as al-Qaeda and Ansaar Sunnah) then the Americans would help them fight the Shia "Mahdi Army".

I believe the Occupation forces are actually trying to decieve these insurgents, as this is starting to sound a lot like what I predicted on this thread.

Let's see what happens if the plan works. First, the religious Sunni groups would be destroyed. Then the Americans and those Iraqi insurgents who helped them would team up against the "Mahdi Army"...

Then... as I explained on my first post on this thread, the Americans would have a fake short war with the "Mahdi Army" and other Shias in which they would be "defeated" and would leave Iraq, portraying Sadr and his "Mahdi Army" as the victors and saviours of Iraq.

By then, the Sunni groups would have been divided into two groups:

1) The religious (who by then would be destroyed, so they would not be seen as the defeaters of the occupation)

2) The nationalists (who having joined the occupation, would be seen as traitors and agents of the occupation, so they certainly wont be seen as the victors).

So at that point, the only group that could take credit for "defeating the occupation" would be Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army".


As I explained in great detail on my first post on this thread, the original plan was that there would be no significant Sunni resistance.

When this plan failed after the rise of nearly 10 powerful Sunni groups, they decided to destroy them and then have the fake war with the "Mahdi Army". This plan didnt go very well either.

So now they have come up with a new plan which in the end would give the same results they were hoping to get at the beginning of this war, by taking advantage of the rising enmity between the Sunni Nationalists and Sunni Islamists.



Posted By: Tom123
Date Posted: 13 October 2007 at 7:17pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

So why did the USA invade Iraq ? Was it for oil ? Or was it a conspiracy similair to the Hezbushaytan conspiracy in Lebanon ?

The US did not invade Iraq for oil. Infact they have spent billions of dollars on this war and the most they could get out of Iraq's oil is to get their money back.

The truth is that just as Israel invaded Lebanon to make Hezbushaytan look like heroes, the US actually invaded Iraq to make Muqtada al-Sadr the hero of Iraq.

This time however, since Saddam's Government was destroyed by the US, Moqtada al-Sadr was actually meant to take over Iraq. This is why we see that the mainstream Media (which is controled by the same people who control the Governments) spoke against the war and so many controled oppositions and fake leftists were against this war...

The war on Afghanistan is silenced down by the media and the fake left who lead and set up the main protests pretty much ignore Afghanistan, concentrating almost entirely on Iraq instead.

We also saw how the Abu Ghurayb torture pictures came out and were spread in all the mainstream newspapers and the TV. These are the same newspapers and TV channels who censor 99% of the truth about world events and who cover up much of the crimes of the western Governments. But for some reason everyone suddenly seemed to turn against the Iraq war, including the fat cats and the members of secret societies and even the mainstream media.

We also saw how the US Government accused Iraq of having WMDs, but when they couldnt find any, they actually said so !

This is the same Government who covered up what really happened on 9/11. After the WTC attacks, the US Government immediately blamed the attacks on Al-Qaeda, and after Osama bin Laden denied responsiblity for the attacks the Government made numerous fake videos and audio tapes and all sorts of fake evidence to try and convince people that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

But again, when it came to Iraq, things were different. The US politicians just came out and admitted that they have found no WMDs, thus delibrately making the war unpopular.

Bush also accused Saddam of involvement in 9/11, but strange he later denied it. But why did he deny it ? If he had lied in the first place, why didnt he continue lying? If he had no evidence in the first place, why didnt he continue lying without any evidence ? Or could it be that he delibrately wants to be seen as a liar, thus making the Iraq war and the US right wing more unpopular.

The truth is that the US knew from day one that Iraq had no WMDs. Even Collin Powell admitted this when he first came to office. And the real question is, why was the US worried about Iraq's alleged Chemical and Biological bombs, when Iran was allegedly making NUCLEAR bombs ???

Surely Nuclear weapons should be a bigger concern... but strangely the US and the western media only turned their eyes towards Iran AFTER it was made clear to the whole world that Iraq did not have WMDs.

In other words, now that the US accuses Iran of making WMDs no one believes them because they had already lied about Iraq.

But the real question is Why didnt they invade Iran before Iraq ? This is while Iran is SUPPOSEDLY USA's biggest enemy in the middle east, and while Saddam was USA's former ally.

Iran was also a neighbour of Afghanistan, making it easier for the US to move it's forces from Iran to Afghanistan and from Afghanistan to Iran.

Now the media is trying to decieve us into thinking that the US wanted to invade Iran After Iraq... some going as far as claiming that the US wanted to "surround" Iran from the east and the west. This is rediculous though because it would have been much easier for the US to invade Iran in the first place, or at least right after Afghanistan.

No, the truth is something else. The US didnt invade Iran because they dont even want to invade Iran, and infact, as I have explained on another thread, Iran and USA are secretly working together:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7785& ; ;PN=1&TPN=1

Now consider that the US and Iran are only pretending to be enemies and then we can think about the real reason why the US invaded Iraq.

If you have a good memory, you may remember that when the US first invaded Iraq, a Shiah cleric by the name of Moqtada al-Sadr showed up, who claimed to have risen up to fight against the invaders and free Iraq.

The media suddenly concentrated on him, even though he and his forces had done very little and had killed very few if any American soldiers.

Moqtada al-Sadr's army, which he calls "the Mahdi Army", were seen as a serious force to be reckoned with... they were seen to be the "Hizbullah" of Iraq. Infact, they are closely allied to "Hezbullah" (Hezbushaytan) and they constantly praise Hasan Nasrallah.

I have no doubt that Moqtada al-Sadr was meant to be the Nasrallah of Iraq. In other words, the plan was that he would rise up against the US, and the US would then leave all of a sudden. Sadr would then be seen as the hero and saviour of Iraq, and with Saddam gone, he would take over Iraq and eventually hand it over to Iran.

This is why Ayad Allawi was at first installed as the president of Iraq. Although Allawi was born into a Shiah family he was not seen as a Shiah as he did not practice his religion in any way. He was seen as just another US puppet, and this was done to make the US occupation even more unpopular and increase support for Sadr.

This is also why the real number of American soldiers killed is not reported. Ofcourse in most wars Governments try to claim that fewer soldiers have been kill than the enemy claims, however in this war the USA has been minimising the casualty reports like no other. The Army of Rashideen (Jaysharrashedeen, one of the Islamic yet nationalist resistance groups in Iraq) made a documentary where they gave examples of how the US casualties were not reported, and even when the resistance filmed their attacks the mainstream media (and even aljazeera) tried their best not to tell the truth about the number of dead Americans. As an example there was one attack where the Army of Rashideen themselves killed 4 Americans, but the western media and even alJazeera claimed that only 1 soldier was killed !!

The resistance groups such as the Army of Rashideen claim that over 30,000 American soldiers have actually been killed and they see the numbers given by the US Government as a joke. In their documentary film the Army of Rashideen put forward an intresting question. They asked Bush how is he going to cover up so many deaths ? They found this cover up very strange as the US is actually claiming the number of American soldiers killed to be less than 10% than what it really is.

So why is this happening ? And why also does the mainstream media seem to completely ignore Afghanistan and hardly ever report the American casualties there ? Many people in the west are actually under the impression that very little is going on in Afghanistan, this is while American soldiers themselves say that the war in Afghanistan is far more serious and far deadlier than the war in Iraq.

What's happening is again part of the conspiracy. The US Government would eventually have to report the true number of casualties, or at least they would have to reveal more than 10%, but they have planned to do this only after Sadr rises up. In other words they plan that when Sadr rises up they would suddenly claim that 20 or 30 thousand American troops have been killed - supposedly all of them by Sadr's "Mahdi Army". Then when people in the west hear of this there would be an uproar and bigger protests. Bush would then have an excuse to pull out of Iraq, making it seem as if Sadr and his Army have suddenly risen up and gained an amazing victory.

The US would then claim that those American soldiers who were really killed in Afghanistan were actually transfered to Iraq and were killed there by the "mahdi army" ! The tens of thousands of soldiers who have been killed by al-Qaeda, Ansar Sunnah, Army of Rashideen and other Sunni resistance groups would all be attributed to Sadr.

In other words the plan is that Sadr and his army would rise up after the defeat of the Sunni resistance. Then the western Media and the Governments would claim that the "Mahdi Army" have gained amazing victories and have killed thousands of American soldiers in a short while, when in reality there would be very little real fighting.

The US would then pull out of Iraq, supposedly defeated by the Moqtada al-Sadr.

 

However one thing happened which the US was not predicting, and that wasthat religious Sunni Muslims formed their own groups which turned out to be far more powerfull than Sadr's "Mahdi army", even though the "Mahdi army" had more members.

Ofcourse the US knew very well that Sunnis are going to rise up, what they didnt predict was that they would be so strong and would hold up such a great resistance.

At first the US just tried to destroy these Sunni "insurgents" but their own forces suffered instead. The conspirators who had planned these wars were now terrified because if these Sunnis managed to defeat the US then they would be seen as the heroes of Iraq and all their plans would be ruined.

So then we saw how the Government of Iraq was changed and made to look more religious and Shiah clerics were included in the Government. The New Iraqi Government then became popular among many Shiahs in Iraq and so more people joined the "Iraqi National Army".

Now the US forces didnt have to worry about the Sunni "insurgents" defeating them, because the National Army were there to take some of the casualties.

In order to encourage more people to join the National Army, the US and the New Iraqi Government bombed civilian areas, murdering men women and children, and then blaming it on the Sunni "insurgents", especially al-Qaeda.

However, even al-Qaeda denied these charges but ofcourse their voice is hardly ever heard. The Shiah clerics such as "Ayatullah" Ali Sistani and even the Iranian Government repeated the lie of the Americans and the New Iraqi Government, accusing so called "Sunni extremists" and al-Qaeda for these attacks on mosques and schools.

Sistani even went as far as calling upon his followers to join the National Army to fight the "terrorists" and so many more people joined the National Army seeking to take "revenge" from the Sunnis "insurgency".

Things were now going well for the conspirators, but the Sunni "insurgents" had taken over some of the key locations in Iraq including Fallujah.

The conspirators wanted to completely destroy the Sunni "insurgents" and they were not willing to take any chances so they bombed Fallujah and other areas controled by Sunni resistance groups without mercy. They even use illegal Chemical bombs including White Phosphorus. These bombs killed off entire peoples and compltely destroyed some areas. Thousands and thousands of Sunni civilians were killed in these bombings which were meant to completely finish off the Sunni resistance and give way to Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi army".

But instead of being annihilated, the "insurgents"/resistance simply went underground, as explained by the leader of Jaysh ar-Raashideen (one of the main resistance groups). He stated that afterwards the resistance became even stronged and harder to fight because now the US didnt know where they are while the resistance knew where the Americans are.

And so the Sunni resistance continued and Sadr was forced to tell his forces to stop fighting the Americans, and this is why: If you study what Moqtada al-Sadr has been doing, u will see that he has been constantly calling upon his followers to stop fighting the occupation. Every time his forces go into a battle with the Americans or the British or the Government, he immediately calls for a ceasefire.

Most of his followers have no idea what is going on. He is actually telling them to stop fighting because he wants the Americans to get rid of the Sunni resistance first. When their job is done, he is meant to come out and play the part of the hero.

However it was not enough for him to convince his followers not to fight the occupation, he even went as far as calling upon his followers to help the occupation!!! This he claimed was to fight against the "bigger enemy" which was al-Qaeda !!! This was because now the Government was handed over to religious Shiahs, so Sadr could claim that he is defending "Muslims" from "Nasibis" ("Nasibi" is a term Shiahs use against Sunnis whenever they want to fight against them).

The "Mahdi Army" then teamed up with the Iraqi National Army, fighting against the Sunni resistance groups !! They even protected the British forces in Basrah as reported by Peter Oborne in his documentary (Iraq Reckoning).

So what kind of "resistance force" are they ??? If you look at what these guys have been up to for the past 3 or 4 years, you will be amazed to see that the mainstream media still trie to portray them as an "insurgency" and how Moqtada al-Sadr still talks big as if he is USA's main enemy, when in reality he has been helping the occupation.

Strangely, Moqtada al-Sadr cant decide wether he supports the New Iraqi Government or not. One day he joins his forces with them, the next day he talks big about bringing down the Government.

The reason why he looks so st**id now is that he has been waiting for too long, and this is because the Americans have failed to destroy the Sunni resistance. He is meant to be an anti-Government anti-occupation religious hero, but his actions have proven the opposite.

He is still lying in wait for the time when his illuminati/Rosicrucian masters tell him to rise up against the occupation. Now that a religious Shiah government has been installed in Iraq part of the plan is already accomplished, except that the conspirators didnt want shiahs to look like American puppets, which is why they have kept Sadr.

But just incase the Sunni resistance continues to stand tall, they are going to have to stay content with a pro-American, yet "religious" Shiah Government (So long as Iran is allied to them, and so long as Iran is seen as a religious anti-American Government, the New Iraqi Government could also hope to be portrayed as anti-American one day. In other words they can later pretend to have sided with Iran rather than the USA, when in reality they have always been working with both Iran and the USA).

During the past few years many Sunni resistance groups have grown suspicious of Sadr. Some have even found proof that his men were working secretly with the Americans. No not just Al-Qaeda, but other Sunni resistance groups like Ansar-Sunnah and Jaysha Abi Bakr have arrested and executed close friends of Moqtada al-Sadr and high ranks in the "Mahdi Army", who were seen working closely with the Americans.

Also the leader of the Islamic Army of Iraq stated in an interview with al-Jazeera that the "Mahdi Army" should decide which side they are on (as they are sometimes working with the occupation).

The Ansar Sunnah also made a documentary film where they showed how the Americans attacked certain areas, destroyed every single household, except the Shiah ones.

In one particular village, there was one Shiah family living among many Sunni families. All Sunni families in that area were killed off by the Americans, but the Shiah family and their house were left untouched!! The Americans are obviously working for the same people who control Sadr, which is why they are ordered to destroy the Sunni population of Iraq thus increasing the Shiah percentage and thus giving the majority of Iraqis only two choices: New Iraqi Government or Sadr.

 

Recently Sadr has been trying to win over support by pretending to be a nationalist and thuse portraying himself as an opponent of Iran !!! Nothing can be further from the truth. Most if not all of Sadr's weapons have been given to him by Iran and infact Iran is even sending men to Iraq to join the "mahdi army" and also the pro-American "Badr brigade". The Sunni resistance group Ansar Sunnah even captured an Iranian member of Sadr's army after fighting and defeating a group of fighters from the "Mahdi army". The Iranian hostage had even been given equipment by Iran and was sent to Iraq by the Iranian Government itself.

As time is passing by the plans of the Kuffar are being exposed, because as Allah Subhana Ta'ala says:

 

"Although they plan, Allah also plans. And Allah is the Best of Planners." [Holy Qur'an 8:30]



   LOL!!! The Americans invaded Iraq to make Sadr look good- and the Israelis invaded Lebanon to help Hizbullah- BRILLIANT!!!!

   You should seriously consider publishing this in MAD magazine or some other similar source! The Mahdi Army is not 'pro-American' and the Hizbullah is not 'pro-Israeli'. The fact is Shia Muslim fighters have inflicted more casualties on Israeli and American invading forces in the Middle East than anyone else. Many Sunni armed groups (like Ansar Al Sunnah or Al Qaeda in Iraq) hate the Jaish Al Mahdi because they are Shias and they see the Shia as heretics.

   I am not btw a supporter of either the Mahdi Army or Hizbullah or Sunni Iraqi resistance groups, or the American and Iraqi puppet government forces they are battling (when they are not fighting each other).

I believe as a Christian that all war and violence today is against Christ's teachings and therefore I am opposed to it. So I am not 'defending' Sadr or Hizballah- like the people they are fighting they too have blood of the innocent on their hands.

   However, I believe that to accuse Hizballah or Jaish Al Mahdi of being pro-US or pro-Israeli governments is absurd.

   Why do you hate Shias so much? Aren't they Muslims too?

   Cristo Vive!
       - Tomasz

  


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 14 October 2007 at 4:15am

Originally posted by Tom123

 
   LOL!!! The Americans invaded Iraq to make Sadr look good- and the Israelis invaded Lebanon to help Hizbullah- BRILLIANT!!!!

   You should seriously consider publishing this in MAD magazine or some other similar source! The Mahdi Army is not 'pro-American' and the Hizbullah is not 'pro-Israeli'. The fact is Shia Muslim fighters have inflicted more casualties on Israeli and American invading forces in the Middle East than anyone else. Many Sunni armed groups (like Ansar Al Sunnah or Al Qaeda in Iraq) hate the Jaish Al Mahdi because they are Shias and they see the Shia as heretics.

   I am not btw a supporter of either the Mahdi Army or Hizbullah or Sunni Iraqi resistance groups, or the American and Iraqi puppet government forces they are battling (when they are not fighting each other).

I believe as a Christian that all war and violence today is against Christ's teachings and therefore I am opposed to it. So I am not 'defending' Sadr or Hizballah- like the people they are fighting they too have blood of the innocent on their hands.

   However, I believe that to accuse Hizballah or Jaish Al Mahdi of being pro-US or pro-Israeli governments is absurd.  

They only pretend to be against the US and Israel, I explained why here:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924&PN=1&TPN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924& ;PN=1&TPN=2

Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

 

As you may well know, the Western Governments have always been planning against Muslim countries, they created Israel and are now making war after war.

They knew very well that Muslims will want to fight back and they wont just sit there while all this was going on, so they came up with a very clever plan, which was to create forces around whom religious Muslims and those who want to do something about these wars would gather.

They knew that so long as they control the leaders of these groups/Governments, they would not Truely harm them in any way and would only carry out limited attacks and just use words and words and words the rest of the time to fool people into thinking that they are serious, while in reality these fakes would actually be helping the West and actually fighting against the real enemies of the Western occupation by simply accusing any real group that does not join them of being "agents of the west" or "agents of Israel".

However, this could only succeed through Shiism as it is they who believe in Taqlid (blinding obeying their scholars) so this plan could only work well on the Shiahs (also because Shiism is closely linked to western secret societies :  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9460&PN=3 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9460& ; ;PN=3 )

Therefor, they first tried to portray Sunnis as pathetic, careless cowards and in order to do this they gave power to those in Sunni countries who were willing to openly obey the western Superpowers.

It was then that they created their fake Islamic Government in Iran and the so called "Hezbollah". Iran and "Hezbollah" have helped increase the popularity and conversion to Shiism and Iran has been publishing hundreds if not thousands of books propagating Shiism. In these books you will often see that they claim that Shiism is "heroic" while Sunnis are "Pathetic" and if anyone wants to be on the "heroes" side they would have to become Shiahs (the "victory" of "Hezbollah" in 1982 was meant to portray Shiism as just that - also Iran in 1979 became the only "Islamic fundementalist" country in the world, thus Shiism became the hope for those Muslims who cared about their Ummah.)

After 1982, the "Hezbollah" did very little (practically nothing) except propagate Shiism and promote themselves as the "heroic saviours of Islam", however after so many years it was required to once again remind people of the supposed "heorism" of the Shiah "Hezbollah" so then there was this recent war, the outcome of which I actually predicted during the early days of the war!!!

Here's the link: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007&PN=16&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007& ; ;PN=16&TPN=1

If you look at Sadr and "Hezbollah", one thing that they have in common is that they love "ceasefires" or "peace negotiations".

Now there is nothing wrong with making peace....but making peace in the middle of a war and while the occupation still continues simply does not make sense, but all FAKE groups do that. They first rise up and become popular, once enough people have joined and have become very famous they suddenly sit back and relax!!

On the other hand when you look at REAL resistance groups, such as the Chechen Mujahideen and the Sunni resistance groups in Iraq (examples: Ansar Sunnah, Tawhid wal-Jihad, Jayshal Islami fel Iraq) they continue to fight so long as there is war and occupation, killing thousands of enemy soldiers and themselves losing many of their men and leaders.

They continue to fight until they either win, or lose, something that imposters would not do because they dont want to win (they dont want to destroy their masters) and they dont want to lose (they are not willing to sacrifice their lives and obviously if they are destroyed the whole plan would be ruined).

Also read my post on this link (the long one with the picture, scroll down): http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007& ; ;PN=16&TPN=12

 

Now as you may know, Iran supports, funds and arms both the "Mahdi army" and the "Hezbollah". Hasan Nasrollah leader of "Hezbollah" even said "We are Iran" (meaning they are a part of Iran).

Of course Iran also claims greatly to oppose the US and Israel and even calls the USA "The Great Satan"!

Now, if you think Im a "conspiracy theorist" read the following:

Or it could be said that the drama started in 1981, just after Reagan came into office, when U.S. officials learned that Israel was ignoring the 1979 American ban on the sale of arms to Iran. At the time Iran badly needed spare parts for the American-made weapons it had acquired during the Shah’s reign. In their hour of need the Iranians looked to Israel, which had also supplied weapons to the Shah.
The Israelis reportedly set up Swiss bank accounts to handle the financial end of the deals. Despite its embargo, the U.S. appeared to look the other way. Administration officials seemed interested in Israel’s notion that the arms sales would help foster ties with leaders in the Iranian military…
…In late August, Israel sent a planeload of arms to Iran. The cargo consisted mostly of Soviet-made weapons that the Israelis had captured in Lebanon…
In the fall of 1985 Iran was presumably making payments to Israel through the Swiss bank accounts set up to handle Israeli-Iranian arms sales in the early 1980s. At the same time, Israel was demanding that the U.S. replace the items that had been taken from Israeli stockpiles and sold to the Iranians. But Washington reportedly grew suspicious about the finances. In asking for fresh weapons, Israeli officials claimed that they could not pay full price, but Washington suspected that Iran was paying the Israeli dealers far more than the arms were actually worth. The U.S. urged Israeli officials to drop the arms merchants from the Iran deal and allow Jerusalem to take over the operation…
Israel sold Iran $12 million worth of weapons at a price that included a markup as high as 250%, or $42 million…

Source: TIME Magazine Article, ( http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir861208.html - http://www.time.com/time/europe/tim...n/ir861208.html )
TIME Archives:
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,963021,00.html - http://www.time.com/time/archive/pr...,963021,00.html
time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,963021,00.h tml
------------------------------------------------------
Reagan would wait and disclose his intentions in private. So it was with the disputed decision in August 1985 to condone arms sales by Israel to Iran. “He called and said, ‘I think we ought to get on with that. Let’s go ahead with that,” McFarlane told the commission.
Source: MSNBC Article,
( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5165237/site/newsweek/ - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5165237/site/newsweek/ )
------------------------------------------------
The book “The Iran Contra Connection” discusses the relationship between Iran and Israel:
The Israeli Interest in Iran
… Though Israel, along with the United States, suffered a grievous loss with the fall of the Shah, its leaders concluded that lasting geo-political interests would eventually triumph over religious ideology and produce an accommodation between Tel Aviv and Tehran. The onset of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 gave Israeli leaders a special incentive to keep their door open to the Islamic rulers in Iran: the two non-Arab countries now shared a common Arab enemy. As Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post in May 1982, justifying Israeli arms sales to Tehran, “…we hope that diplomatic relations between us and Iran will be renewed as in the past.” Four months later he told a Paris press conference, “Israel has a vital interest in the continuing of the war in the Persian Gulf, and in Iran’s victory.” Such views were not Sharon’s alone; Prime Ministers Itzhak Shamir (Likud) and Shimon Peres (Labor) shared them too…
The Arms Channel Opens
Israel lost no time supplying the new Khomeini regime with small quantities of arms, even after the seizure of the U.S. embassy. The first sales included spare parts for U.S.-made F-4 Phantom jets; a later deal in October 1980 included parts for U.S.-made tanks…
Notes Ha’aretz correspondent Yo’av Karny “The cloak of secrecy that surrounds Israeli arms exports is so tight that one can compare it to the technique for smuggling hard drugs.” When caught in the act, Israeli officials maintained they were simply selling domestic arms, not embargoed U.S. weapons. “Whenever we would get word of shipments,” one American official explained, “the State Department would raise the issue with Israel, and we would get the standard lecture and promises that there were no U.S. weapons involved.”
…[The Israelis] signed a deal with Iran’s Ministry of National Defense to sell $135,842,000 worth of arms, including Lance missiles, Copperhead shells and Hawk missiles…
In November 1981, Israeli Defense Minister Sharon visited Washington, shopping for approval of similar arms sales [to Iran]. His U S. counterpart Caspar Weinberger, flatly turned him down. Sharon then went to Haig, hoping for acquiescence from the State Department. Again, McFarlane handled many of the discussions with Sharon and Kimche; this time Haig unequivocally opposed any violation of the embargo.
Yet as in 1979-80, Israel pursued its policy anyway, in flat violation of its arms re-export agreements with the Pentagon. In a May 1982 interview with the Washington Post, Sharon claimed that Israeli shipments had been cleared “with our American colleagues” months earlier and that details of all the shipments were supplied to the administration. Later that year, Israel’s ambassador Moshe Arens declared that Israel’s arms sales were cleared at “almost the highest levels” in Washington…
And those shipments would continue to be enormous in size, estimated by experts at the Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv at $500 million in value from 1980-83. Other arms market experts have put the total value at more than $500 million a year, including aircraft parts, artillery and ammunition.

(Source: p.169, “Irangate: The Israel Connection” excerpted from the book The Iran Contra Connection by Johnathan Marshall and Peter Dale Scott, South End Press, 1987, paper)
----------------------------------------------
After the Revolution, Iranians continued to buy arms from the United States using Israeli, European, and Latin American intermediaries to place orders, despite the official United States embargo. Israeli sales, for example, were recorded as early as 1979. On several occasions, attempted arms sales to Iran have been thwarted by law enforcement operations or broker-initiated leaks. One operation set up by the United States Department of Justice foiled the shipment of more than US$2 billion of United States weapons to Iran from Israel and other foreign countries. The material included 18 F-4 fighter-bombers, 46 skyhawk fighter-bombers, and nearly 4,000 missiles. But while the department of Justice was attempting to prevent arms sales to Iran, senior officials in the administration of President Ronald Reagan admitted that 2,008 TOW missiles and 235 parts kits for Hawk missiles had been sent to Iran via Israel.
Despite official denials, it is believed that Israel has been a supplier of weapons and spare parts for Iran’s American-made arsenal. Reports indicate that an initial order for 250 retread tires for F-4 Phantom jets was delivered in 1979 for about US$27 million. Since that time, unverified reports have alleged that Israel agreed to sell Iran Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, radar equipment, mortar and machinegun ammunition, field telephones, M-60 tank engines and artillery shells, and spare parts for C-130 transport planes
Source: Global Security Article
( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/intro.htm - http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit.../iran/intro.htm )



Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 17 October 2007 at 3:25am
Finding the REAL reasons for just about anything that has happened in
the past 50-70 years is far harder than one would think.

Sawtul, I seem to remember, was thoroughly caught up by the Illuminati
agenda and frequently mentions various secret societies supposedly
responsible for this or that inexplicable historical anomaly. Besides these
immediately obvious secret societies and their converging agendas, there
is a far more menacing and frightening elite group directly responsible
for practically every political and social event since the discovery of oil in
Texas.

Coming to conclusions such as the delusional secret alliance between the
US-Iran-Shia, is actually the SIMPLE answer to what is a complex trail of
clues left by members of the Bilderberg organisation and the Trilateral
Commission.

Here's an extract from an interesting paper available at Globalresearch.ca:
Imperial Playground: The Story of Iran in Recent History

by Andrew G. Marshal

     In the 70s, the Shah of Iran, which was at the time a secular [non-
religious] nation, was stepping up the process of industrializing the
country of Iran. At this time, Europe, especially at the behest of Germany
and France, was pursuing greater cooperation and integration, and in
doing so, created the European Monetary System (EMS), under which the
nine European Community member states made the decision to have their
central banks work together to align their currencies to one another. This
would allow for greater competition between the Anglo-American
dominated ‘petrodollar monetary system’ and the rising European
Community, which was still feeling the effects of the OPEC oil shock. Part
of the agreement between Germany and France was to develop an
agreement with OPEC countries in the Middle East to exchange high-
technology and equipment for a stable-priced oil supply. The Anglo-
Americans saw this as a threat to their hegemony over the oil market, and
so, “Carter had unsuccessfully sought to persuade the Schmidt [German]
government, under the Carter administration’s new Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act, to abandon export of virtually all nuclear technology to
the developing sector, [underdeveloped countries, i.e. Iran] on the false
argument that peaceful nuclear plant technology threatened to proliferate
nuclear weapons, an argument which uniquely stood to enhance the
strategic position of the Anglo-American petroleum-based financial
establishment.” This effort to persuade Germany was to no avail, so the
Anglo-Americans had to pursue a more drastic policy change.

      This policy formed when, “In November 1978, President Carter named
the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral
Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the
National Security Council’s Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington
drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic
opposition of Ayatollah Khomeni. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of
the lead ‘case officers’ in the new CIA-led coup against the man their
covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.” This is further
corroborated by author and journalist, Webster Tarpley in his book,
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, in which he stated, “Carter
and Brzezinski had deliberately toppled the Shah of Iran, and deliberately
installed [Ayatollah] Khomeni in power. This was an integral part of
Brzezinski’s ‘arc of crisis’ geopolitical lunacy, another made-in-London
artifact which called for the US to support the rise of Khomeni, and his
personal brand of fanaticism, a militant heresy within Islam. U.S. arms
deliveries were made to Iran during the time of the Shah; during the
short-lived Shahpour Bakhtiar government at the end of the Shah’s reign;
and continuously after the advent of Khomeni.” The Defense and Foreign
Affairs Daily reported in their March 2004 edition that, “In 1978 while the
West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
from the throne, [Ayatollah] Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would
listen not to allow ‘Ayatollah’ Ruhollah Khomeini and his velayat faghih
(Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah
Shariatmadari noted: ‘We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a
brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run
a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been
achieved at such great cost and effort’.” This was exactly the point of
putting them in power, as it would destabilize an industrializing country,
and as William Engdahl further pointed out, “Their scheme was based on
a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as
presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on
assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis’ scheme,
which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria,
endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeni, in
order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal
and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage
autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites,
Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread
in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into the
Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.”

      Bernard Lewis’ concept was also discussed in a 1979 article in Foreign
Affairs, the highly influential seasonal journal of international relations
put forward by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the pre-eminent
policy think tank in the United States, whose leadership and many
members also share membership with the Trilateral Commission and
Bilderberg Group. The article stated, “The ‘arc of crisis’ has been defined
as an area stretching from the Indian subcontinent in the east to the Horn
of Africa in the west. The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its
strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free
World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about
three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the
locus [central point] of one of the most intractable conflicts of the
twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism. Moreover,
national, economic and territorial conflicts are aggravated by the
intrusion of religious passions in an area which was the birthplace of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and by the exposure, in the twentieth
century, to two competing appeals of secular modernization: Western and
communist,” and further stated, “Against the background of these basic
facts, postwar American policy in the Middle East has focused on three
major challenges: security of the area as against Soviet threats to its
integrity and independence, fair and peaceful resolution of the Arab-
Israeli conflict, and safe access to its oil.”

- - - - -

William Engdahl continued in his examination of the 1979 revolution/
coup in Iran, of which he said, “The coup against the Shah, like that
against Mossadeq in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence,
with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public ‘credit’ for getting
rid of the ‘corrupt’ Shah, while the British characteristically remained in
the background. During 1978, negotiations were under way between the
Shah’s government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year oil
extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a
British ‘offer’ which demanded exclusive rights to Iran’s future oil output,
while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on
British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the
verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953,
with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.”
The strategy was to have “religious discontent against the Shah [which]
could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and US
intelligence,” and so “As Iran’s domestic economic troubles grew [as a
result of the British refusing to buy Iranian oil in a strategy of economic
pressure], American ‘security’ advisers to the Shah’s Savak secret police
implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner
calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time,
the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of ‘human
rights’ under the Shah,” and the strategy even entailed using the BBC
(British Broadcasting Corporation), which “gave the Ayatollah Khomeni a
full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British
government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah’s
government an equal chance to reply.” Further, “during the Christmas
season of 1979, one Captain Sivash Setoudeh, an Iranian naval officer and
the former Iranian military attaché before the breaking of diplomatic
relations between the United States and Iran [in 1979], was arranging
arms deliveries to [Ayatollah] Khomeni out of a premises of the US Office
of Naval Research in Arlington, Virginia.”

      With the successful revolution/coup in Iran in 1979, the Shah was
exiled to Egypt, and back in the United States, Bilderberg and Trilateral
Commission co-founder and international banker David Rockefeller was
approached by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the deposed Shah, who was
suffering from cancer, and “she was turning for help to the man who ran
one of the leading U.S. banks [Chase Manhattan – now, JP Morgan Chase],
one which had made a fortune serving as the Shah’s banker for a quarter
century and handling billions of dollars in Iran’s assets. Ashraf’s message
was straightforward. She wanted Rockefeller to intercede with Jimmy
Carter and ask the President to relent on his decision against granting the
Shah refuge in the United States,” and further, “The new Iranian
government also wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which
Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates
ran much higher.” And so, “a public campaign by Rockefeller – along with
[Henry] Kissinger and former Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman John
McCloy – to find a suitable home in exile for the Shah” was undertaken,
and “Rockefeller also pressed the Shah’s case personally with Carter when
the opportunity presented itself. On April 9, 1979, at the end of an Oval
Office meeting on another topic, Rockefeller handed Carter a one-page
memo describing the views of many foreign leaders disturbed by recent
U.S. foreign policy actions, including Carter’s treatment of the Shah.”
According to a Time Magazine article in 1979, “Kissinger concedes that
he then made telephone calls to ‘three senior officials’ and paid two
personal visits to [Secretary of State] Vance to argue that a U.S. visa
should be granted the Shah. He expressed that view volubly in private
conversations with many people, including journalists. He said that the
last of his direct pleas was made in July. He and Rockefeller then sought
to find asylum elsewhere for the Shah. Rockefeller found a temporary
residence in the Bahamas, and Kissinger persuaded the government of
Mexico to admit the Shah on a tourist visa.” Eventually their efforts were
successful, as it was further revealed, “The late Shah had friends at Chase
Manhattan Bank and in the highest echelons of trilateral power. David
Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger played instrumental roles in arranging
the Shah’s exile and shaping US policy toward Iran.”


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 17 October 2007 at 10:14am

Wait a minute, are you actually implying that they got rid of the Shah and replaced him with Khomeini just to stop Iran from prospering financially??? Since the Shah was openly their ally, surely they could have made more money with him around than the supposed anti-American anti-West Khomeini.

I agree that things are more complicated than they seem, but it's certainly not all about money.

 



Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 17 October 2007 at 1:06pm
Tut tut Sawtull. Go read the whole document and stop inferring that I (as
opposed to the author of the extract) am implying anything. You have a
long way to go. Find out about the Bilderberg organisation and the
Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and countless
other 'think tanks' and US/Globalisation policies before you dismiss the
notion that it is 'all about money'. It is all about 'globalisation' which is
the latest buzzword replacing the more sinister (and actual name) One
World Government ideology which is ALL ABOUT THE ELITE MAINTAINING
THEIR GLOBAL POWER AND PROFIT, at your, and my, expense.

It is difficult to accept at first sight, but the goal is and has been for some
time, to DESTROY the growth economy, and destroy nation states, in
favour of elite government over the dumbed-down masses. The article
goes to some lengths to help you get your mind around the seemingly
contradictory US/UK actions to prevent Iran from prospering. As we can
all see, the prevention of economic growth maintains Iran and countless
other countries in the region nicely under control of the organisations
and foundations created by the elite (MFI, World Bank, UN etc.) which all
ultimately allow the elite to continue their safe, comfortable lives of
luxury, while so-called developing nations serve as their production sites.
Allowing us all, no encouraging us, to believe there is a religious motive
behind it all, is simply another psy-ops tactic, which has worked
extremely well

Read this article as it will help you formulate your conspiracy theory, with
actual facts as opposed to your twisted and tortuous anti-Iranian/Shia
diatribe.


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 23 October 2007 at 4:41pm

Today, on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol declared that the U.S. was close to victory in the Iraq war, arguing that the only concern left for the U.S is dealing with alleged Iranian involvement in Iraq:

"We're winning in Iraq. That is the absolute crucial precondition to having success in the broader fight against Islamic jihadism.  And I think we are going to have to be serious about dealing with both their intervention in Iraq which is now the only real threat, I think, incidentally, to relative success in Iraq and their nuclear program."

 

As you can see they are actually trying to change history. I mentioned numerous other examples on my earlier posts such as my post at the buttom of this page: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411& ;PN=1&TPN=1



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 29 October 2007 at 2:27pm

Duende, here's CFR coming to Iran's rescue!!! http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_200_dollar_oil_if_war_with_iran_says_cfr_pres.htm - http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_200_dollar_oil_if_ war_with_iran_says_cfr_pres.htm

Kissinger did the same: http://darulislam.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3244 - http://darulislam.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3244

The same people who control the Neo-Cons are trying to turn people against a future war on Iran... !!! I explained why here: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924& ;PN=1&TPN=1

 



Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 30 October 2007 at 4:03am
Sawtul, read up on the techniques used by the CFR to plant supporters of
both sides of an argument, thereby continuously confusing the public as
to their real intentions. As supreme master of these techniques, Kissinger
is very unlikely to reveal the truth about ANYTHING although, a grain of
truth may be planted in whatever he states so as to lead us all along.

Personally, I feel Kissinger and his fellow seekers of One World
Government are annoyed with G.W and Cheney who consistently try to get
the upper hand over them, and some public knuckle-rapping is in order.

Incase you haven't been able to bone-up on the CFR, here's a small idea:
The CFR members include executives from the New York Times,
Washington Post, L.A Times, Wall Street Journal, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX,
Time Fortune, Business Week. Candidates from both sides of the political
spectrum, most of the relevant government posts, especially Foreign
Policy obviously, CIA, FBI, and the IRS. Henry Kissinger is the key man in
the CFR. The president of the CFR, and founder, is David Rockerfeller,
world class banker extraordinaire.

Since before 1942 the CFR and Bilderberg Club have been working
towards a One World Government, which is largely what today’s UN is
being prepared to become, governing the three world regions of Europe
(notice it has already become an entity with its own ‘constitution’) a Pan-
American union, (the introduction of the Amero- replacing the Peso/
Canadian Loony/U.S Dollar is already in the public awareness) and Pacific/
Asian Union. The powerfully rich rule these regions behind the curtains of
the current U.S Admin and the European Parliament, via bodies such as
the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Tavistock Institute and Royal Institute of
International Affairs (UK) along with a whole range of seemingly un-
related ‘think-tanks’ and foundations (Rockerfeller Foundation, Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie, Ford etc.,)

Psycho-political campaigns directed by the CFR and Bilderberg Club,
mostly prepared by the Tavistock Institute in the UK, are designed to
manipulate and create perpetual tensions in order to imprint upon the
world the ‘public opinion’ that best suits their ends. There are three basic
rules of influencing conduct: Carefully elaborated misinformation must
contain an element of truth: the elaborate web of deceit must be so
ornate as to make proof and actual evidence supporting it, intangible, by
hiding key information from the public, and thirdly; the actual
misinformation must not discredit a source of credibility such as the
media, which are therefore responsible for this role of ‘credible source’.
The Western media are almost entirely under the control of the CFR.

Placing themselves on both sides of an argument they demoralize,
confuse and confound and very few of us can see through the
smokescreen and determine the real motives.

From what I can judge, I see Ahmadineyad and the Iranian Ruling Council
as one of the last bastions against this world-domination of the ultra-rich
US based bankers, along with Cuba and Venezuela, and the emerging
Russian oligarchy.


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 30 October 2007 at 10:11am

I'm actually way ahead of you (just because I dont talk about something doesnt mean I dont know about them). The CFR, the UN, the US Government and Israel, as well as Iran, Russia and France are all on the same side.

It's like a game of chess, one side plays the black the other the white, and we are just pawns in their game until and unless we find out what's really going on (that's why I concern my posts with revealing their biggest secrets such as the real reason why they invaded Iraq and the real motives of Iran and "Hezbollah")



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 20 December 2007 at 10:03am

Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

All Sunni families in that area were killed off by the Americans, but the Shiah family and their house were left untouched!!

 

Im sorry I made a mistake here, the documentary actually says the "Mahdi army" were the ones who carried out the massacre rather than the Americans.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 29 December 2007 at 3:36am
Swat ze Shaitaan, could I join you? Are you paid well? 

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 13 April 2008 at 7:13pm

Now after a long time the US media and certain people in the Government are starting to reveal this conspiracy that I wrote about.... BUT in a misleading way.

Here is the new Daily Show interview: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165992&title=aram-roston - http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=165992&title=aram-roston
 
Notice the guy being interviewed says that the war on Iraq benefited Iran and that Chalabi (an Iraqi Shia) misled America into making war with Iraq and gave the United States false information.
 
The interviewer (Jon Stewart who is Jewish by the way) says that this seems like Chalabi was Iran's agent and that Iran was secretly trying to trick the USA into making war with Iraq.
 
The other guy then says that some believe this though he himself disagrees (yet implies that it could be the case).
 
 
 
Do you see what's happening? They are trying to say that Iran tricked the USA. In other words the USA didn't know what was going on (even though even I knew and there is no way a Superpower wouldnt know about something like this).
 
So what they are trying to do here is to make it seem like Iran and the USA were not really working together but that Iran simply sent double agents to the USA to trick the USA into invading Iraq. They want us to think that this was all a conspiracy by the Iranian Government (interestingly some in the US Government claim that it was all Al-Qaeda's plan and that al-Qaeda tricked the USA into invading Iraq).
 
The truth however is that Iran and USA are and have always been close allies in secret. I've been telling people about this for years and others have spoken about it many years ago before I did.
 
 Iran didn't trick the USA into invading Iraq, Iran and the USA are both working together along with many other Governments including France, Israel, India and others. Those leading these countries are in fact part of the Illuminati and are planning together.
 
Yes the Iraq war benefited Iran, but you would be FOOLISH to assume that the USA did not know that this war was going to benefit Iran. As I explained a long time ago the USA delibaretely got rid of Iran's only real enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
 
They then gave power to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (who were always working for Iran) and the Shias in Iraq (who are also working for Iran and many of those now in the Iraqi Government are agents of the Iranian Government and members of Iran's Badr Brigade).
 
 
 
As I explained on my first post on this thread,  their plans for Iraq are failing, and it was probably their failure that gave me time to expose them, otherwise things would have happened so fast that their plans would have gone smoothly.
 
InshaAllah their plans will continue to fail.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 2:28am
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

Now after a long time the US media and certain people in the Government are starting to reveal this conspiracy that I wrote about.... BUT in a misleading way.

in a misleading way?
 


-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 7:10am
Oh Angel! Don't ask, for heaven's sake!

The explanation is going to be about as understandable as the small print on your insurance policy ......


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 8:49am
Swat continue ..... your relentless persuation is admirable, this can only be done, if someone is highly motivated or highly paid. As you say u r muslim, so I don't see a point of motivation. :)

-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 9:24am
Originally posted by Angel

in a misleading way?
 
 
Didn't you read the rest of my post? I already gave the reason:
 
Notice the guy being interviewed says that the war on Iraq benefited Iran and that Chalabi (an Iraqi Shia) misled America into making war with Iraq and gave the United States false information.
 
The interviewer (Jon Stewart who is Jewish by the way) says that this seems like Chalabi was Iran's agent and that Iran was secretly trying to trick the USA into making war with Iraq.
 
The other guy then says that some believe this though he himself disagrees (yet implies that it could be the case).
 
 
 
Do you see what's happening? They are trying to say that Iran tricked the USA. In other words the USA didn't know what was going on (even though even I knew and there is no way a Superpower wouldnt know about something like this).
 
So what they are trying to do here is to make it seem like Iran and the USA were not really working together but that Iran simply sent double agents to the USA to trick the USA into invading Iraq. They want us to think that this was all a conspiracy by the Iranian Government (interestingly some in the US Government claim that it was all Al-Qaeda's plan and that al-Qaeda tricked the USA into invading Iraq).
 
The truth however is that Iran and USA are and have always been close allies in secret. I've been telling people about this for years and others have spoken about it many years ago before I did.
 
 Iran didn't trick the USA into invading Iraq, Iran and the USA are both working together along with many other Governments including France, Israel, India and others. Those leading these countries are in fact part of the Illuminati and are planning together.
 
Yes the Iraq war benefited Iran, but you would be FOOLISH to assume that the USA did not know that this war was going to benefit Iran. As I explained a long time ago the USA delibaretely got rid of Iran's only real enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
 
They then gave power to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (who were always working for Iran) and the Shias in Iraq (who are also working for Iran and many of those now in the Iraqi Government are agents of the Iranian Government and members of Iran's Badr Brigade).
 
 
 
As I explained on my first post on this thread,  their plans for Iraq are failing, and it was probably their failure that gave me time to expose them, otherwise things would have happened so fast that their plans would have gone smoothly.
 
InshaAllah their plans will continue to fail.
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

Swat continue ..... your relentless persuation is admirable, this can only be done, if someone is highly motivated or highly paid. As you say u r muslim, so I don't see a point of motivation. :)
 
lol, you never have anything else to say do you?

How does anything I have said harm Islam or Muslims? How does revealing these facts about Iran and proving Iran is not Islamic harm Islam?
 
Why dont you ever even try to refute anything I said, you and a few others on this Forum just keep saying "you're lying, you're an agent" and that's all you say.
 
I find this to be very interesting because that's exactly what the Iranian Government does. Whenever someone criticises the un-Islamic policies of Iran the Iranian Government immediately arrest and often execute the person and accuse them of being agents of Israel or America without any evidence while all the evidence shows that the Iranian Government itself is working for Israel.


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:12am
Swat, I am not paid to waste time with someone paid for it. And you are right, that what ever you say, it does not harm islam. Allah is the biggest and most wise planner. So I don't worry about what you say, your reasonings are like comic to me and it really makes me laugh.
 
How can someone put arguments against comic/joke? That's why i rathar told you to carry on. :)


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 10:39am
Originally posted by nu001

Swat, I am not paid to waste time with someone paid for it. And you are right, that what ever you say, it does not harm islam. Allah is the biggest and most wise planner. So I don't worry about what you say, your reasonings are like comic to me and it really makes me laugh.
 
How can someone put arguments against comic/joke? That's why i rathar told you to carry on. :)
 
You dont watse your time? lol what an excuse, you post on almost every thread that I start but never have anything to say but to accuse me of being an "agent" (you really remind me of Whisper).
 
You mean to say that you dont have time to read my posts? If not then what are you basing your accusations on? If anyone here is being payed by Israel or whoever then it's you since you seem to be on a mission and not here to discuss.
 
As for Allah subhana ta'ala, remember that Shias dont really worship Him as Khomeini former leader of Iran admitted when he wrote in his book Kashfol-Asrar page 107 that Shias do not worship the same God as the Sunnis.
 
 


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 14 April 2008 at 12:55pm
Swat, thanks for another joke :)

-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 7:46pm
The recent events in Iraq are very significant and are in direct connection to the US election. As I had explained before on the thread about Obama, who becomes the next president of the United States would depend on what happens in the war on Iraq. This is why there was a surge and now a Shia uprising lead by Moqtada al-Sadr who until now was doing nothing but helping the occupation forces.
 
The British forces literally handed over southern Iraq to the Shia militias, thus increasing his power and influence even more, then the US attacks on Sunni groups increased, and as Sunni groups started to weaken greatly (and this was proven as the number of their attacks dramatically decreased) then the "Mahdi army" rose up.
 
Here is a recent news article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

It says:
 
Al-Maliki is hoping that the ongoing crackdown against Shiite militants — principally al-Sadr's fighters — will allay their fears of Iranian leanings and a bias against his own Sunni population — which long held a privileged position under Saddam Hussein.

This is really funny as the members of the New Iraqi Government are under Iran's direct control, some lived in Iran until Iran sent them to Iraq to help the USA. In fact there is more evidence to link them to Iran than Moqtada al-Sadr (of course al-Sadr is also working for Iran but so is the New Iraqi Government).

So why are two groups both working for Iran and the USA fighting eachother? Well the answer is they are not. We are told that they are fighting eachother but look at this:
 
http://www.2and2.net/my.php?image=http://www.2and2.net/files/480d4fcf04fbc.jpg">
 
 
And watch at this:  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef1_1206658508 - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef1_1206658508
 

Why do you think the foreign Occupation forces did not participate in the fighting and just sent in the Iraqi Army?? Because they knew that the Iraqi Army being 95% Shiah would not fight the Shiah "Mahdi Army", especially since they were allied together for a long time in their fight against Sunni resistance groups.
 
As the picture shows, the Iraqi Army actually handed over their weapons to the "Mahdi Army", so not only did they not weaken the "Mahdi Army", they actually made them stronger.
 
If they had sent in British and American troops, there may have been some serious fighting, since individual American soldiers are not aware of their masters plans and dont know that Bush and Iran+Sadr are actually all on the same side.
 
You gotta love the excuse given in the video. They say British troops will not join because their commanders fear it may inflame the situation, but then at the same time says the Americans are joining the fighting in the north!!!!!!!

Say what?????? If the Americans are joining the fighting, wouldn't that already inflame the situation??? So why are British forces not fighting?
 
Well the truth is the Americans are only fighting militias in the north who are not under Moqtada al-Sadr's leadership and not among his men. That is why they are not moving into the south and this is also why the British forces are not fighting because they are already in the south.
 
So the fact that the British Forces were ordered not to fight and Americans ordered not to move to the south (where the "Mahdi Army" are) PROVES my point, this proves that the "Mahdi Army" is controled by the United States through Moqtada al-Sadr and this proves that the USA does NOT want to destroy them, just as Israel does not want to destroy the "Hezbollah".

So all they did was send in the Iraqi Army and then the Iraqi Army mostly refused to fight and simply handed over their weapons to the "Mahdi Army" making them stronger!!!
 
 
Al-Maliki said he would fight the Mahdi Army "UNTIL THE END". Ok let's wait and see if he will. I assure you that he is lying and will not.
 
This may be the beginning of the plan I mentioned on my first post on this thread, the fake defeat of the Occupation by the "Mahdi Army". As I explained before, they need to do this before Obama becomes president, because if they dont they would have to have Obama stop the war or else have Mccain continue it if they have to.
 
In any case this is a very crucial and important time for the Illuminati.


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 21 April 2008 at 9:42pm
I love our court juggler Professor Ala Hazrat Sat on It Khalifa ben Cohen with or without his jeans! For 'e is ze one and ze only in the whole wild world wiz ze vision. Wiz pure simple Tel Aviv vision and agenda.

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 23 April 2008 at 2:55pm

New reports claim British and American forces are in south Iraq and are actually taking part in the fight against the "Mahdi Army".

This is from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7360875.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7360875.stm

Let me just comment on some of the things the BBC says:

US and UK special forces are carrying out operations in Basra in southern Iraq against Shia militiamen, a Western military source has told the BBC.

The aim is to detain senior figures in the Mehdi Army and other Shia militias, and members of a local tribe.

So their aim is just to arrest them? I thought they were supposed to be fighting.


At that time, the BBC understands that 550 US troops embedded with the Iraqi army also joined in the battle.

Remember when it was reported that American troops are not taking part in the battle? Now they claim that they are!!! Secretly!

This video from the BBC also makes this claim that the British and American soldiers have covertly taken part in the fighting without anyone knowing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm

Remember before they claimed the reason why Americans and British forces are not taking part in the fighting was that they didnt want to "inflame the situation", but now they say they are taking part in the fighting but secretly... my question is, if it's a secret then WHY ARE THEY REVEALING IT??? Wouldn't that "inflame the situation"???


The truth is as originally reported, British and American troops are NOT fighting the "Mahdi Army", they first made the excuse that they dont want to "inflame the situation", now they make the excuse that they are fighting covertly.

You may ask, if they want to decieve us why dont they just lie and claim they are fighting normally?

Well because then the ordinary people in Iraq and independent journalists would know that this is not true and they could be exposed real soon.

So since American and British soldiers are nowhere to be seen in the streets they make excuses like "we dont want to inflame the situation", or "we are there but covertly and secretly" (as if they would reveal their own secrets).

The operation was criticised by US commanders as poorly planned and as failing to achieve its stated aims.

Yes it was poorly planned, even an idiot would know that sending the Iraqi Army alone to fight the Shia militias is pointless.

Going back to this video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm notice the BBC report that military sources (in other words commanders working directly for the US Government) "revealed" this secret (either these are the st**idest commanders in the world as they revealed secrets that they claim would harm them, or they actually gave false information to the BBC to decieve viewers into thinking that the USA and Mahdi Army are fighting eachother).

The video also shows Iraqi soldiers handing over weapons to the "Mahdi Army" (I posted a picture of it on my last post).

But the FUNNIEST part of the video is the end where an Iraqi Soldier who refused to fight the "Mahdi Army" says "I dont want to fight Iraqis or Muslims".

WHAAAAAAAT??!!! LOL!!! What has he been doing all this time?? The Iraqi Army do nothing BUT fight Muslims and Iraqis, there is no one else to fight since they never fight the Americans and are trained and armed by them and are under their command.

So why did this guy join the Army if he didn't want to fight Iraqis??? What nonsesne.

He obviously didn't want to fight the "Mahdi Army" and MOST LIKELY the New Iraqi Government itself secretly told the soldiers not to fight because the New Iraqi Government is mainly controled by the "Badr Brigade" and many soldiers in the Iraqi Army are from the "Badr Brigade" and the "Badr Brigade" is directly controled by Iran as is the "Mahdi Army".

So it's very obvious that he is lying and that he didn't fight because he was ordered not to by agents of the Iranian Government who also control the "Mahdi Army".



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 23 April 2008 at 2:58pm
Three cheers for our Professor Ala Hazrat Sat on It Khalifa ben Cohen with or without his jeans! For 'e is ze one and ze only in the whole wild world wiz ze vision. Wiz pure simple Tel Aviv vision and agenda.

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: TruthSearcher
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 10:31pm

After reading this thread, it appears many readers are not well informed of the origins and beliefs of the Shia sect. May I take this an opportunity to recommend all readers to read about the Shi'a on the following very informative site:

http://www.ahlelbayt.com - www.ahlelbayt.com
 
I suggest you first navigate to the Articles sections and look up History.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 11:03pm
TruthSearcher, Are u SWAT? with a different name? or coming in professional rescue of fellow collegue?
 
I read the western propaganda links you provided and I could only feel that about you.
 
So what do you want to say in support of SWAT? That Shias are the enemies of Islam? My dear, Allah has clearly mentioned in the holy Quran as to who are are enemies. Majority of the Muslims (Shia / Sunni) know that. Please stop this joke of making differences between Shia and Sunni. These are not significant at all.
 
So please stop preaching hatred. This issue picked up by Swat has already become a joke. If you want to be another joker, choice is yours.
 
:)


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 11:31pm
TruthSearcher, Are u SWAT? with a different name? or coming in professional rescue of fellow collegue?
 
Brother, the word is Fellow Operative - not colleague - in this murkey Psy-ops world!
 
So please stop preaching hatred. This issue picked up by Swat has already become a joke. If you want to be another joker, choice is yours.
 
Now, that's a bit of a tall order. Preaching Hatred is very important for breaking the enemy and is the corner stone of Hang Low Sexnon + Israeli agenda!


-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 26 April 2008 at 6:53am
Originally posted by Whisper

TruthSearcher, Are u SWAT? with a different name? or coming in professional rescue of fellow collegue?
 
Brother, the word is Fellow Operative - not colleague - in this murkey Psy-ops world!
 
So please stop preaching hatred. This issue picked up by Swat has already become a joke. If you want to be another joker, choice is yours.
 
Now, that's a bit of a tall order. Preaching Hatred is very important for breaking the enemy and is the corner stone of Hang Low Sexnon + Israeli agenda!
 
Originally posted by nu001

TruthSearcher, Are u SWAT? with a different name? or coming in professional rescue of fellow collegue?
 
I read the western propaganda links you provided and I could only feel that about you.
 
So what do you want to say in support of SWAT? That Shias are the enemies of Islam? My dear, Allah has clearly mentioned in the holy Quran as to who are are enemies. Majority of the Muslims (Shia / Sunni) know that. Please stop this joke of making differences between Shia and Sunni. These are not significant at all.
 
So please stop preaching hatred. This issue picked up by Swat has already become a joke. If you want to be another joker, choice is yours.
 
:)
 
 
 
LOL, it's pretty obvious that you two belong to small heretical sects and are not in touch with mainstream Muslims.
 
Whisper you yourself admitted that you believe in reincarnation and as for nu001 I think it's very obvious which sect you belong to with your constantly and blindly defending Iran.
 
The great Islamic scholars including like Imam Bukhari, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafii and most others have condemned Shiism. Read: http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/what_do_scholars_of_ahlusunnah_tell_about_shias.htm - http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/what_do_scholars_of_ahlusunnah_tell_about_shias.htm
 

Are classical Sunni scholars and millions of Muslims all around the world and billions throughout history all been working for Israel???
 
The funny thing about you two is that you never even look at the evidence I provide about Israel's secret alliance with Iran, but just repeatedly accuse me and anyone who agrees with me of being "agents of Israel". This is a tactic used by Khamenehi leader of Iran and Iran's mainstream media and many Iranian Shias who support Khamenehi use the same method to try and discredit anyone who exposes the truth about the Iranian Government.
 
I've posted this material on a nunmber of other Islamic Forums and plenty of people agreed with me there and on this Forum too sign reader agreed with me as well as a number of others as well as this new member http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=59704&FID=52 - TruthSearcher
 
It is pathetic how you slander a new user for agreeing with me and how you Whisper have accused entire Islamic Forums of being "Israeli" without even a shred of evidence.
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

 
 That Shias are the enemies of Islam? My dear, Allah has clearly mentioned in the holy Quran as to who are are enemies. Majority of the Muslims (Shia / Sunni) know that.
 
As I already showed the greatest Muslim scholars declared Shias to be Kafir or Monafique, this is not merely "my opinion" but that of the Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/what_do_scholars_of_ahlusunnah_tell_about_shias.htm - http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/what_do_scholars_of_ahlusunnah_tell_about_shias.htm
 
The enemies of Muslims according to the Qur'an are not just the Kafirs who attack us, but also the Monafiqeen who help the Kuffar just as the Iranian Government helped the USA in the war on Iraq and the war on Afghanistan.
 


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 26 April 2008 at 11:48am
Swat, you didn't answe my question. But your reaction makes your identity obvious.
 
I love jokes, specially if it is in an unexpected place, that's more entertaining.
 
Your masters who are monitoring your work, are not rating you well I'm sure. Coz your ploys are not working. you need more knowledge on Islam to be assigned such job.
 
A muslim is someone who submits his will to Allah, so you are wasting your time fighting Allah. But you have the freedom to continue your jokes, I'm enjoying it. 


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: TruthSearcher
Date Posted: 26 April 2008 at 6:47pm
I don't know what 'swat' is.
 
Furthermore, the http://www.ahlelbayt.com - www.ahlelbayt.com is not 'western propaganda' as you put it. Until you truly appreciate the origins and beliefs of the Shia sect, your views on current world affairs will be somewhat inconclusive. I again recommend you actually Read the history articles.
 
And I am not spreading hatred. Most ordinary Shia do not know themselves the origins of their sect.


Posted By: moderator
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 12:18am
Please go back to the original thread (why US in Iraq, not talk about about sunni or shia belief). Please don't just make a statement base on assumption. "Most ordinary Shia do not know themselves the origins of their sect." this look like assumption unless there is some kind official census or survey. 


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 8:34am
I don't know what 'swat' is.

Yes, we know, it's most difficult to know your own self specially when we are forced to walk under the label of a Truthseeker!!

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 8:43am
Please don't just make a statement base on assumption. "Most ordinary Shia do not know themselves the origins of their sect." this look like assumption unless there is some kind official census or survey.

Thanks a million. These two fitnagaraan just dwell on obsessive divisive assertions. They are a waste of time, they smell foul, they are trained in the art of defamation straight down to the dot by we know who.

It would be good to throw them where they belong. We all know about the lies Swat told when he had joined the forum. But, I feel, it's good to watch incessant Israel propaganda at play by such fraudsters.

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 11:04am
Originally posted by moderator

Please go back to the original thread (why US in Iraq, not talk about about sunni or shia belief). Please don't just make a statement base on assumption. "Most ordinary Shia do not know themselves the origins of their sect." this look like assumption unless there is some kind official census or survey. 
 
Assalamo alaykom wa rahmatollah wa barakatoh
 
Great we finally have a moderator on this thread, I want to ask why Whisper and nu001 have not been banned for accusing me and other members who agree with me of being "CIA agents" or "Israeli agents"??
 
If you want I can show you a list of insults from Whisper, he has called me a "CIA agent", a "rude American", "Israeli", "mentally retarded", "scum" and many other things. Arent these insults and baseless accusations far worse than mere assumptions?
 
If you read these two members posts you will find that they constantly post on virtually every thread that I start and just call me names. They dont even discuss anything or argue against what I say but just call names so their comments are off topic and abusive and repetative.
 
Over a year ago because of Whisper one of my threads was closed because it had gone off topic due to his changing the topic from the war in Lebanon to me being an "Israeli" or an "American".
 
On that thread he also accused other Islamic Forums like Gawaher.com of being "Israeli" (please go and check that Forum and judge for yourself if it is "Israeli" or not).
I then asked Whisper to provide some evidence that the Forum was "Israeli" and of course he never provided any evidence but just repeated his claim.
 
Whisper also claimed he has the ability to "vibe" people and use mystical abilities and that by doing so he had supposedly "discovered" that I and many other Muslims were "Israeli agents".
 
 
I can give you links to all of these posts where Whisper made such claims if you wish and later nu001 came in and started saying the same things as Whisper.
 
I dont know why these members have not yet been banned but I think there is sufficient reason to do so.
 
 


Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 10:44pm
Sawtul, don't be daft. These things have to be reported in order to be taken into consideration as cause for expulsion. See that 'report' button at the bottom of your post? It's how we draw attention to moderators when someone engages in divisive, accusations. Like you. I also use it when you spam your own threads. The Mods have been extremely indulgent with you on this one.

This post places you at the level of an eight year old. How can we take you seriously?

Pot, meet the kettle, it's black. You spend your waking hours dreaming up ways of accusing various regimes, organisations and even Islamic states of being in collusion with the Washington regime, and you get all sensitive when members on the forum tease you?


Posted By: TruthSearcher
Date Posted: 27 April 2008 at 11:28pm
I am interested to know what Whisper & Duede views are on the current US led war in Iraq. Is it a simple case of 'good' muslims fighting the 'bad' americans?? From what you have said on this forum so far, which to the most part is slandering other forum members, it appears your political views are very simplistic. So how about you share your thoughts on the war, which is what this thread is about.
 
Moderator, you have publicly asked me to focus on the topic of the thread, yet you appear to be turning a blind eye on certain users who seem to only write insults to other users. I ask these insulting users to focus on refuting the arguments raised by Sawtul, so we can have a debate and share thoughts.
 
As for the accusations put against me by Whisper, I say again I am not swat, so stop falsely accusing me of being so. And your criticism of any opposition to the shia belief being an 'Israeli agenda' is uterly pathetic. It reminds if the zionists accusing anyone who even dares to question their policies as 'anti-semitic'!.
 
Duende, I'm suprised you accuse Sawtul of an '8 year old', yet you have nothing of the sort to say about Whisper who's only line seems to be 'israeli agenda, israeli agenda..' without actually refuting a single point. 


Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 2:02am
Nevermind TruthSearcher. Try using the 'search' part of your name, you'll get a good perspective on Whisper and me. Sawtul's threads are no-brainers. Do a little research through the forum archives.


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 28 April 2008 at 4:10am
Originally posted by TruthSearcher

 I ask these insulting users to focus on refuting the arguments raised by Sawtul, so we can have a debate and share thoughts.
 
As for the accusations put against me by Whisper, I say again I am not swat, so stop falsely accusing me of being so. And your criticism of any opposition to the shia belief being an 'Israeli agenda' is uterly pathetic. It reminds if the zionists accusing anyone who even dares to question their policies as 'anti-semitic'!.
 
Duende, I'm suprised you accuse Sawtul of an '8 year old', yet you have nothing of the sort to say about Whisper who's only line seems to be 'israeli agenda, israeli agenda..' without actually refuting a single point. 
 
Search through the threads of last oneyear and more if possible to see ample of discussions on this topic and your collegue's illogical point of views. He identifies himself as a muslim, so some universal islamic beliefs are expecte of him. If he ack that he is only pretending to be one, then many of the problems will be solved and atleast I will understand what and why he is saying it.
 
Still if you want to have a discussion after that, It would be nice to know if you are a Muslim or if christian or Jew including your sect/branch of it. It helps to keep the discussions short. If you are a Muslim, I don't have to tell you many things, that I have to tell you if you belong to other faith. Just for your better understanding.
 
I am a Muslim. And by born I inherit a Sunni point of view. I hope I made myself clear. It would be fair to know your own religious point of view to keep our discussions brief and to the topic. Hope you have the courage to tell the truth.
 
If you are TruthSearcher, should come out with your truth first. You can't search truth, sitting on lies.


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 30 April 2008 at 11:32pm
Duende, I'm suprised you accuse Sawtul of an '8 year old', yet you have nothing of the sort to say about Whisper who's only line seems to be 'israeli agenda, israeli agenda..' without actually refuting a single point. 
 
You should have joined this forum 24 days earlier, on your very own day! What do you call someone who sells fish? El Fishmonger! No?
 
We well know what we call those who sell hate.
Want me to spell it out for you? We don't just call them Hatemongers but also bin them as rotten Israeli agentors.
 
Any other objection as the Sikh had asked!
 
Swat what ever had lied to the forum about his identity when he joined us. He had lost that very day when he was smelt and caught by a mere whisper. But then on his agenda has had the stink we all recognise.
 
And, we will waste time by being dragged in to a debate and that too with YOU?


-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 30 April 2008 at 11:43pm
without actually refuting a single point.
 
Do you sertiously have a point that deserves to be refuted? And, we should follow some typical American Square Grid pattern of discussion - of your prescription?
 
Please be reminded that people of calibre normally debate with people of some class. And, for trash we do have a special bin.


-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 30 April 2008 at 11:55pm
Nu001 and Duende, I think, we better not worry about this one at all. Our pobrecito "Sat an whatever" had no audience left here so he has invented a supporter!

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 01 May 2008 at 12:23am
Whisper, You are right.
 
On a second thought I think he was right in saying,"Most ordinary Shia do not know themselves the origins of their sect."
 
How the ordinary members will know an origin of a sect made (manufactured) by the extra ordinary western agents?
 


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 01 May 2008 at 6:09am

LOL one minute you guys try to convince someone that Im an agent and the next minute your accusing that same person of also being an agent for not believing you! What a Joke!

Seeing how nu001 is not only repeating everything Whisper had said in the exact same way (without looking at the evidence but just repeatedly accusing) it's obvious that if anyone has invented a supporter it is Whisper.

Before brother truthseeker other members like sign reader and a few others agreed with me regarding Iran.

If you go to Islamicawakening.com and Domain of Islam and many other Forums you will find many members who agree with me.

 

As for refuting Whisper, I already made a thread dealing with all his accusations lies and contradictions: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9843&KW=



Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 01 May 2008 at 10:18pm
Sawt, it must be difficult to maintain more than one identity, so it's taking time to reply my post.
 
It takes time to recruit, I undestand your prob. Where are your supporters? Why they don't show up & identify themselves?
 
I don't mind agreeing to and repeating truth. Muslims do that.


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 03 May 2008 at 11:04am
As for refuting Whisper, I already made a thread dealing with all his accusations lies and contradictions:

Poor chap! However hard you work people around here have found you out. Not my fault, just plain simple law of natural retribution at play.

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 11 May 2008 at 12:08pm

By the way I forgot to mention this, but I actually predicted the events happening in southern Iraq 2 months before it happened:

(Im referring to the events which I talked about here:
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=6 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=6 )
 
 
This is what I wrote on the Obama thread on February:
 
 
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

The next president is determined not by the votes but by what happens in the Iraq war.
 
The original plan for Iraq was for Bush to lose to Sadr, if they want to continue with that the next president would have to be a neo-conservative (or it should happen within the next few months) but since the plan has been failing and they dont want the Sunni fundementalists to be seen as the victors they will have to stop the war as a "merciful" act of a democratic president.
 
I think Iran will eventually move their forces to Iraq especially if and when Obama pulls the troops out, in order to prevent the Sunnis from taking over.
 
 
Link: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11569&PN=3 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11569&PN=3
 
 
It seems they are taking their chances and trying to use what little time they have left to accomplish their plans while they still can (or think that they can).


Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 3:32am
I would just like to point out that Sawtul claims to have a political knowledge superior to many internationally known independent analysts and observers. Independent means they are not in the pay of corporate media and are known to be very critical and skeptical of the official stories generally published by mass media, reported by CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera, for example. These reputable, independent sources (Gareth Porter, Greg Palast, Juan Cole, Raed Jaraar, Seymour Hersch, Pepe Escobar, Geoffrey StClair etc.,) have so far failed to see the connections Sawtul makes: i.e that Ahmadinejad and Sadr are secretly doing everything they can to support the puppet Iraq regime, and advance American interests in the region.

Instead of finding the twisted path to explain some Grand Secret Connivance between Iran and its mortal enemy the Grand Satan the United States of America (which Sawtul is so deeply attached to,) it is helpful to make some dispassionate observations and comparisons with other areas of similar geopolitical importance, such as between the U.S and Venezuela.

In Venezuela, as with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, we have another state leader whom the U.S claims to be an enemy of the people, a dictator, a terrorist financier, Hugo Chávez. Recently, the game there has been to instigate an attack on Ecuadorian land, of a Colombian rebel military (FARC) camp. The attack was carried out by Colombian forces with the help of U.S agencies. (Incidentally it was carried out at night, while the rebels were sleeping, and subsequent evidence shows that at least two of the slain guerrilas were shot in the back.) After the attack, miraculously (why anybody would traipse around the deep ecuatorial rain forests with a lap top in his rucksack is not a question anybody has asked,) a laptop computer was found in the camp, belonging to the murdered rebel leader Raúl Reyes on which it is now claimed emails were found naming Hugo Chávez as funder and supporter of the FARC. And so, the presstituting goes on, with the US and allied media building a case against Chávez, essentially aimed at proving he is a terrorist and an international danger.

Why has it not occurred to Sawtul, or any independent observer to elaborate the theory that actually Chávez and Bush are secretly buddies, working together to, let’s say, divide Venezuela into the more easily manageable oil rich autonomous regions and pocket the profits from unregulated oil extraction and trade on the international markets?

Because Chávez, as far as we know is not a Shi’ia Muslim.

I just want to make sure everybody understands Sawtul’s motivation: sectarian division between Muslims. It is for this reason that seasoned forum members and many muslims generally find his posts distastefull, unecessary, provocative and counter productive to the general well being and cohabitation of Muslims everywhere. It is for this reason we have serious missgivings about his presence here, since he arrived unwilling to state his identity (only someone afraid of his own identity has any reason not to be truthfull about it on a community forum such as this: a Muslim community forum: here we are all equal and all share a common fundamental ideology … unless of course your intentions are not to maintain the spirit and integrity of the forum … in which case …) The current state of the Muslim ummah is not exactly one of peacefull cohabitation, tolerance and understanding. We can thank the United States for this: since their decision to attack Afghanistan by way of retaliation for the September 11th attacks, they have managed to increase terrorism around the world, they have instigated, armed and trained the population for the ongoing sectarian war in Iraq, and the guerrila war ongoing in Afghanistan, and they are planning exactly the same offensive for Pakistan.

And so we can see how the United States and its lackeys Israel, the U.K, NATO and to a large extent the U.N have made an enemy out of Islam. And how can one best conquer an enemy? One way is to divide and rule. Division. Divide the Muslim Ummah one way or another, revive old sectarian suspicions, maintain an unhealthy and destructive simmering resentment. THAT is what Sawtul’s posts are good for, and THAT is why many of us suspect he is an ‘agent’ for the enemies of Islam.

I call upon the moderators and the Administration of this forum to consider Sawtul’s presence here, in the light of this obvious fact, and question whether or not he should be encouraged or allowed to continue planting his genetically modified seeds of doubt. For those forum members who share the sense of disgust at his constant attacks against Shi’ia, those who share the exasperation at the pointedly obtuse reasoning behind his Iran-U.S.A complicity theory, to simply respond to his posts with the following information: “This forum member is fulfilling the aims of the enemies of Islam.” The more of us who make this response, the less likely he is to continue trolling here.

Peace.



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 11:35am
Originally posted by Duende

  I would just like to point out that Sawtul claims to have a political knowledge superior to many internationally known independent analysts and observers. Independent means they are not in the pay of corporate media and are known to be very critical and skeptical of the official stories generally published by mass media, reported by CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera, for example. These reputable, independent sources (Gareth Porter, Greg Palast, Juan Cole, Raed Jaraar, Seymour Hersch, Pepe Escobar, Geoffrey StClair etc.,) have so far failed to see the connections Sawtul makes: i.e that Ahmadinejad and Sadr are secretly doing everything they can to support the puppet Iraq regime, and advance American interests in the region.
 
These famous analysts have their voices heard on the mainstream media, do you think the Zionsit controled media is honest and would let the truth out?
 
Originally posted by Duende

 
Instead of finding the twisted path to explain some Grand Secret Connivance between Iran and its mortal enemy the Grand Satan the United States of America (which Sawtul is so deeply attached to,) it is helpful to make some dispassionate observations and comparisons with other areas of similar geopolitical importance, such as between the U.S and Venezuela.

In Venezuela, as with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, we have another state leader whom the U.S claims to be an enemy of the people, a dictator, a terrorist financier, Hugo Chávez. Recently, the game there has been to instigate an attack on Ecuadorian land, of a Colombian rebel military (FARC) camp. The attack was carried out by Colombian forces with the help of U.S agencies. (Incidentally it was carried out at night, while the rebels were sleeping, and subsequent evidence shows that at least two of the slain guerrilas were shot in the back.) After the attack, miraculously (why anybody would traipse around the deep ecuatorial rain forests with a lap top in his rucksack is not a question anybody has asked,) a laptop computer was found in the camp, belonging to the murdered rebel leader Raúl Reyes on which it is now claimed emails were found naming Hugo Chávez as funder and supporter of the FARC. And so, the presstituting goes on, with the US and allied media building a case against Chávez, essentially aimed at proving he is a terrorist and an international danger.

Why has it not occurred to Sawtul, or any independent observer to elaborate the theory that actually Chávez and Bush are secretly buddies, working together to, let’s say, divide Venezuela into the more easily manageable oil rich autonomous regions and pocket the profits from unregulated oil extraction and trade on the international markets?

Because Chávez, as far as we know is not a Shi’ia Muslim.
 
 
I talk more about Iran because I know more about Iran and I know more about Iran because Im Iranian!
 
I mentioned other countries too such as France, India, USA , Israel and Russia but obviously I write more about things I know more about.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Duende

 
And so we can see how the United States and its lackeys Israel, the U.K, NATO and to a large extent the U.N have made an enemy out of Islam. And how can one best conquer an enemy? One way is to divide and rule. Division. Divide the Muslim Ummah one way or another, revive old sectarian suspicions, maintain an unhealthy and destructive simmering resentment. THAT is what Sawtul’s posts are good for, and THAT is why many of us suspect he is an ‘agent’ for the enemies of Islam.

I call upon the moderators and the Administration of this forum to consider Sawtul’s presence here, in the light of this obvious fact, and question whether or not he should be encouraged or allowed to continue planting his genetically modified seeds of doubt. For those forum members who share the sense of disgust at his constant attacks against Shi’ia, those who share the exasperation at the pointedly obtuse reasoning behind his Iran-U.S.A complicity theory, to simply respond to his posts with the following information: “This forum member is fulfilling the aims of the enemies of Islam.” The more of us who make this response, the less likely he is to continue trolling here.

Peace.

 
 
 
The aim of the enemis of Islam was to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran helped them in both wars.
 
Tell me, who sent the Badr Briagde to Iraq?
 
Iran did.
 
Who helped the USA war on Iraq?
 
The Badr Briagde.
 
Where are the Badr Brigade now?
 
They are in the New Iraqi Government and Militay.
 
That's right, the USA gave power to the Badr Brigade who were sent to Iraq by Iran.
 
Here is a picture of the leader of the Badr Brigade with Khamenehi leader of Iran:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02am4XRdQ79Ez/610x.jpg - http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02am4XRdQ79Ez/610x.jpg
 
And here he is with President Ahmadinejad of Iran:
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/al-hakim.jpg - http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/al-hakim.jpg

And here he is with Bush:
 
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/Bush-Hakim-Jan04.jpg - http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/Bush-Hakim-Jan04.jpg
 
 
Hakim leader of the Badr Brigade is a Shiah cleric, this is also a fact.
 
Hakim helped the USA and Israel more than anyone else, so Hakim is the real Israeli agent, and Iran FULLY supported and CONTINUES to fully support him.
 
You are saying that if I expose these facts then that makes me an agent of USA and Israel???

The real agents of Israel and the USA are the ones HELPING THEM, that is obvious with anyone with a brain.
 
 
 


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 3:32pm
Duende, I wish I could explain what a typical Punjabi term "hud haraam" means. But one thing I can assure you of is that before I had come across this chap, I had never seen a perfect personification of this particular term.

And, now, he claims to be an Iranian. You know the rest of the episode about what else he has been!!

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 4:18pm
Originally posted by Whisper

Duende, I wish I could explain what a typical Punjabi term "hud haraam" means. But one thing I can assure you of is that before I had come across this chap, I had never seen a perfect personification of this particular term.

And, now, he claims to be an Iranian. You know the rest of the episode about what else he has been!!
 
LOL!!
 
"Now" I claim to be an Iranian?? I said Im Iranian nearly two years ago.
 
Go back to Shiva and start vibing for a few more centuries, maybe then the spirits and devils or whatever it is you invoke will bring you some real information about me.
 
Or to make it simpler you can go to this thread http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12162 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12162  and watch the video I posted of myself on Youtube.
 


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 10:47pm
Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

LOL!!
 
"Now" I claim to be an Iranian?? I said Im Iranian nearly two years ago.
 
.....................
 
 
Very cheap way to escape the Chavez issue. If you preach a formula, that should work for similar issues as well.
 
Or your expose your hidden intentions. 
 
Islamic Forum, Alert !! Alert !!!
 
 “This forum member is fulfilling the aims of the enemies of Islam.”


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 4:35am
Originally posted by nu001

 
Very cheap way to escape the Chavez issue. If you preach a formula, that should work for similar issues as well.
 
Or your expose your hidden intentions. 
 
Islamic Forum, Alert !! Alert !!!
 
 “This forum member is fulfilling the aims of the enemies of Islam.”
 
 
 
LOL you're so ridiculous, you didn't even quote what I said in response to the Chavez question that Duende brought up but quoted what I said to Whisper.
 
You just proved (once again) that you dont even read my posts yet you claim to "know" that Im an agent of Israel without even reading my posts or knowing anything about me.
 
Are you "vibing" like Whisper?
 
 
Originally posted by Duende

THAT is why many of us suspect he is an ‘agent’ for the enemies of Islam.
 
"many"??? You're just 3 people: Whisper, Duende and nu001.
 
You three think that if you post over and over and over again on my threads calling me names then that way you can make it appear as though everyone in the Forum is against me.
 
I posted this same stuff on many other Forums and in most of them no one accused me of being an "agent" and in fact most people who read it agreed with me.
 
You 3 people dont represent Islam, especially when one of you (Whisper) believes in "vibing for centuries" and the other (duende) believes everything is only about money and the other (nu001) constantly and blindly defends Iran in a way that NO SUNNI has EVER done and is totally unaware of the sayings and postion of famous Sunni scholars and yet claims to be Sunni...
 
By the way has anyone seen that picture of three monkies, one covering his eyes, one covering his ears and the other covering his mouth? It's an interesting picture...
 
 


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 10:34am

Sawtul Khilafah,

As I have no doubt only partly understood, you have argued that Barak Obama is the Illuminati’s candidate of choice for US president.  In this recently published statement, that candidate seems to agree with one of your contentions -not that Tehran is secretly taking its directives from Tel Aviv, mind you, but- that the Iranian hand has been strengthened by the Bush Doctrine (Iraq Occupation).  Mr. Obama says:   

"They've [Bush and McCain] got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush's policies," He said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3544244,00.html

It is no big secret that the Bush Doctrine in action, thus far, absent an entirely possible "preemptive strike" against Iran in future, has in some ways strengthened Iran.  The issue is much discussed.  Vali Nasr, in his book The Shia Revival, says that:  

“During a visit to the United States in September 2005, a frustrated and uncharacteristically blunt Prince Saud al-Faysal, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister and the son of King Faysal, told his American audience that the potential for disintegration of Iraq was real and that that would “bring other countries in the region into the conflict.”  Leaving little doubt as to who Saudi Arabia considered to be its greatest rival in that conflict, he chided the United States, saying that “we Saudi Arabia and the US fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait.  Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason.” 

Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0-393-06211-3, p. 242

I am still, from this thread, and if by now primarily as a courtesy, trying to understand your position:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10189&KW=Nasr - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10189&KW=Nasr

I wonder if you could kindly sum up, in a sentence or two, and without sending me off to sift through clues, the “real reason why the US invaded Iraq.”  What, in your opinion, was that reason, in a nut-shell?

Thank you,

Serv



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 1:03pm
Originally posted by Servetus

Sawtul Khilafah,

As I have no doubt only partly understood, you have argued that Barak Obama is the Illuminati’s candidate of choice for US president.  In this recently published statement, that candidate seems to agree with one of your contentions -not that Tehran is secretly taking its directives from Tel Aviv, mind you, but- that the Iranian hand has been strengthened by the Bush Doctrine (Iraq Occupation).  Mr. Obama says:   

"They've [Bush and McCain] got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush's policies," He said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3544244,00.html

 
 
I actually warned about this some time ago here: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=5 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=5
 
I showed that the mainstream media (the same people who support Obama) have started to reveal this conspiracy that I wrote about.... BUT in a misleading way.
 
I then went on to explain that they want us to think that IRAN tricked the USA into invading Iraq!!
 
Now Obama seems to be implying the same thing... this actually confirms what I said, that the Zionist Illuminati want us to think Iran alone was responsible, rather than Israel, the USA and Iran all being responsible and in it together which is the actual truth.
 

Originally posted by Servetus

I wonder if you could kindly sum up, in a sentence or two, and without sending me off to sift through clues, the “real reason why the US invaded Iraq.”  What, in your opinion, was that reason, in a nut-shell?

 
 
It was to hand over Iraq to Iran, because they already control Iran. When the Iranian revolution happened in 1979 FRANCE sent their agent Khomeini to Iran who created a so called "islamic" Government.
 
However while claiming to be very anti-USA and anti-Israel, shouting "death to Americ and death to Israel" for nearly 30 years, the Iranian Government has always been helping both the USA and Israel and has not carried out a single attack on American or Israeli forces.
 
Iran helped the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq more than any other country in the world, but the media ignored this and instead spread the lie that the USA and Iran are enemies and that they are about to fight a war and that the USA wants to destroy the Iranian Government...
 
I have said this many years ago and I'll say it again, the USA is not planning to destroy the Iranian Government and they NEVER will, nor will Iran destroy the Israeli Government.
 
Israel and Iran are two sides of the same coin.
 
 


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 11:56pm
Iran offcourse has politically benefitted from the attack in Iraq, that does not mean that Iran becomes America's friends. USA chose Iraq to originate the shia sunni conflict in the middle east. USA made direct friendship with Iraq and with Taliban before and you can see how they slaughtered them to fulfil their ultimate aims.
Since it was not possible to make a direct friendship with Iran, so they are using their propaganda machines to preach that Iran is America's friends, justified by the benefits they derived indirectly. The aim is to divide the Islamic world on sectarian basis and make them fight. It is very clear and some disguised people like SAWT are working relentlessly to establish it.
 
He himself admits that he has done it in many other forums, would u mind giving those forum addresses and your ID in those forums, so we can verify your statement?
 
If you wouldn't be an agent, you would not have preached anti Iranian agenda to create a shia sunni divide. If you were disturbed by the shia wrong practices as a muslim, why don't you go to Intra faith section? Your every post is politically motivated and there is not a drop of religious concern at all. Your latest identity 'Ex Shia' is also expressing your malicious intent. What is an ex shia? Jew or Christian now? You think that an ex shia identity can sell politically motivated anti shia preaching, among the Sunnis?
 
SWAT, I feel abominating tendency to Quote your rubish while replying you and thus spreading it all over again. If you forgot what you wrote, go back a few steps and read your own post to relate what I said.


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 8:00am
Originally posted by nu001

  Iran offcourse has politically benefitted from the attack in Iraq, that does not mean that Iran becomes America's friends. USA chose Iraq to originate the shia sunni conflict in the middle east. USA made direct friendship with Iraq and with Taliban before and you can see how they slaughtered them to fulfil their ultimate aims.Since it was not possible to make a direct friendship with Iran, so they are using their propaganda machines to preach that Iran is America's friends, justified by the benefits they derived indirectly.
 
 
Actually the Zionist media say EXACTLY what you just said.  If you go and watch any media channel in the USA or Europe that is mainstream and in support of the Governments of USA and Israel you will see that they all insist that America is the ENEMY of Iran and not allies and they ignore ALL the evidence of their secret alliance and try their best not to even talk about things like the Badr Brigade.
 
So it is YOU who is spreading Zionist propaganda, and Zionist propganda is the SAME as Iranian propaganda.
 
You say EXACTLY what Fox News, CNN and the Israeli media say, and then accuse me of being their agent at the same time!

In fact the reason why a lot of people dont agree with me is that they have NEVER heard any such things being said anywhere and it's all new to them.
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

The aim is to divide the Islamic world on sectarian basis and make them fight. It is very clear and some disguised people like SAWT are working relentlessly to establish it.
 
 
Now here we go back to what I said earlier, that nu001 and others who agree with him never read my posts and discuss the things that I say.
 
Because if you were to read my posts you would see that I showed proof (things that no one, not even Iran can deny). I have shown PROOF that Iran sent pro-American DEATH SQUADS to Iraq.
 
So Iran helped the USA fight Sunnis, so Iran and the USA started the secterian fighting.
 
So now you are accusing me of starting secterian conflict by writing a few posts on the internet YEARS after Iran sent Shiah death squads like the Badr Brigade to Iraq,And years after Iran sent the Quds Force to help the USA in Afghanistan.
 
You're not making any sense as usual...
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

He himself admits that he has done it in many other forums, would u mind giving those forum addresses and your ID in those forums, so we can verify your statement?
 
 
Islamicawakening.com there my usernam is Sawtul Islam
 
 
Domain of Islam, there my usernam was SawtulKhilafah.
Domain of Islam Forum has recently closed but you can still read the posts.
 
islamonline, there my username is soutolislam
 
 
 
  
Originally posted by nu001

If you wouldn't be an agent, you would not have preached anti Iranian agenda to create a shia sunni divide.
 
Sunni Shiah divide has existed for over a thousand years and the most famous Sunni scholars like Imam Bukhari, Imam Shafii, Imam Abu Hanifah and others have declared Shiahs to be heretics and Kafirs.
 
If you completely disagree and oppose prominent Scholars then you do not follow mainstream Islam. You are either very very ignorant or a Shia pretending to be Sunni under taqiyyah.
 
 
I have shown you a video of myself, now you must show a video of yourself saying that you are a Sunni. Until you do so I have absolutely no reason to believe that you are Sunni as every single thing that you have said indicates that you are Shiah as you seem to know absolutely nothing about Sunni Islam.
 
 
 
  
Originally posted by nu001

 If you were disturbed by the shia wrong practices as a muslim, why don't you go to Intra faith section?
 
I did, but since you dont even read my posts you dont even know.
 
 
  
Originally posted by nu001

Your every post is politically motivated and there is not a drop of religious concern at all.
 
Again and again you keep proving that you dont even read my posts.
 
I've posted many threads on different sections discussing Islamic issues and refuting Christianity and Judaism and atheism.
 
 
 
  
Originally posted by nu001

Your latest identity 'Ex Shia' is also expressing your malicious intent.
 
 I said Im an Iranian Ex-Shiah nearly 2 years ago on this Forum. It is not a new claim, the only reason you think so is that you didnt read my past posts.
 
  
Originally posted by nu001

What is an ex shia? Jew or Christian now? You think that an ex shia identity can sell politically motivated anti shia preaching, among the Sunnis?
 
 
I really am an ex-Shiah, I even showed you a video to prove it. In the video I refute the Shiah belief in Temporary marriage (mut'ah nisa), and if you watch the whole video you will find that it is 16 parts, each of them about 9 minutes, all in all it is over 2 hours long and very detailed.
 
Every Sunni that has watched it has thanked me for it and loved the video.
 
 
   
Originally posted by nu001

SWAT, I feel abominating tendency to Quote your rubish while replying you and thus spreading it all over again. If you forgot what you wrote, go back a few steps and read your own post to relate what I said.
 
You were delibrately misquoting me because you wanted to decieve anyone reading these posts and give the impression that I did not answer Duende's question about Chavez.
 
 
nu001, I dont usually accuse people on Forums of being agents, but you really seem to be a Shiah in disguise.
 
Im a former Shiah and I am well aware of the Shiah practice of Taqiyyah where they believe lying is "good" and very often Shiahs pretend to be Sunni, or pretend to agree with Sunnis, like when they say to sunnis that they respect the Sahabah, while in their books they declare the Sahabah to be Kafir.
 
So now it is your turn to show some evidence that you are not Shiah.
 
 
 


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 8:20am
 
I know nu001 doesn't even know the meaning of logic, but here is a logical answer to him, as well as Whisper and Duende.
 
 
You guys are saying that because I said that the Iranian Government is the agent of USA and Israel, then that means I am myself an agent of Israel and the USA!!
 
This is your claim, it is baseless but it is what you are basing your accusations on.
 
Baseless claims dont require a refutation, but I am going to refute it anyway.
 
Im going to show you that BY YOUR OWN "logic", Iran is an agent of USA and Israel.
 
 
Here goes:
 
You say, if someone accuses a group of Muslims (assuming that Iranian politicians are Muslims) of being agents of USA and Israel, then the accuser himself is an agent, even if the accuser has evidence and proof to back it up...
 
Now go to this thread: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9650&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9650&PN=1  and you will see I quoted Khamenehi LEADER OF IRAN from different speeches where he accused SUNNI RESISTANCE GROUPS in Iraq of being "agents of USA and Israel".
 
Khamenehi has made this claim many many times, he constantly accuses Sunni groups that fight the USA of being "agents of USA and Israel".
 
 
So Duende, Whisper and nu001, by your own "logic" Khamenehi LEADER OF IRAN is the AGENT of USA and ISRAEL, because he accused many many Muslims of being agents of USA and Israel.
 
And while I actually showed a LOT of evidence that Iran is working for USA and Israel, Khamenehi and other Iranian polticians have shown ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE.
 
 
So if you 3 really think that someone accuses someone else of being an agent of Israel is himself an agent of Israel, then you would also have to say that Khamenehi is an agent of Israel.
 
The fact that you DONT say so indicates that there is either something wrong with your heads, or that you are Shiahs in disguise.
 
You are saying that Im an agent, because I said Khamenehi is an agent, even though Khamenehi says Sunnis are agents...
 
So do you guys agree with the Leader of Iran, Shiah cleric Ali Khamenehi??? Do you agree that Sunni resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan are agents of Israel??
 
If you dont, then why are you angry that Im calling Khamenehi an agent? Even if what I said was totally baseless and false then that would make me just as bad as Khamenehi.
 
So how on earth can you accuse me of being an agent, but not Iran under the Leadership of Khamenehi????
 
 
If you cant answer this and continue accusing me of being an "agent", then you have proven yourselves to be either completely retarded, or Shiahs in disguise.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 10:11am
Again that relentless professional approach to divide Shia and Sunni. Was our prophet Shia or Sunni, think over it. I am nether of what you are trying to make. I am just a Muslim. un-Happy surely, but I couldn't help you? You first prove that you are a Muslim, then talk about Shia Sunni. 
 
If the person/getup in your propaganda Video is not fake, you are even worse than a Christian and Jew. You are a Munafik. We had many of such people even in prophet's time. But believe me, you cannot make a Shia sunni division insha Allah, however hard you try.
 
You have proven again that you are a paid agent to create a division amongst Muslims and I'm sure you are not alone, must be working in a team.
 
You havn't provided evidence to show that many other Muslims have agreed to your anti Iran proaganda posts on same subject as this one.


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 12:26pm

Originally posted by Sawtul Khilafah

... I then went on to explain that they [mainstream media and Obama supporters] want us to think that IRAN tricked the USA into invading Iraq!!  Now Obama seems to be implying the same thing ...

 

I must respectfully disagree.  In his statement (to which I provided a link),  I don’t hear Mr. Obama implying anything of the sort.  He is simply stating what plenty of people and potential voters know: that President Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle Eastern region has thus far, whether wittingly or unwittingly, in some ways strengthened Iran’s hand.

 

I appreciate the remainder of your post, even if I take issue with most of it.  Perhaps it would be best, assuming that we do proceed, to take things a step (or point) at a time.

 

Best regards,

 

Serv                


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by Servetus

I must respectfully disagree.  In his statement (to which I provided a link),  I don’t hear Mr. Obama implying anything of the sort.  He is simply stating what plenty of people and potential voters know: that President Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle Eastern region has thus far, whether wittingly or unwittingly, in some ways strengthened Iran’s hand.

 

I appreciate the remainder of your post, even if I take issue with most of it.  Perhaps it would be best, assuming that we do proceed, to take things a step (or point) at a time.

 

Best regards,

 

Serv                
 
 
Well my point is that Obama is not saying what Im saying, obviously there is some truth in what he said but he didn't say the whole truth, just the obvious facts that as you pointed out, many people already know about.
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

Again that relentless professional approach to divide Shia and Sunni. Was our prophet Shia or Sunni, think over it.
 
Ask ANY Sunni and they will tell you he was Sunni.
 
"Sunni" is just a term used to distinguish Muslims from heretics, it means followers of Sunnah, implying that other sects dont follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), so according to Sunni Muslims the Prophet (saw) was a Sunni.
 
The fact that you dont even know this very basic thing is very strange indeed.
 
Originally posted by nu001

 I am nether of what you are trying to make. I am just a Muslim. un-Happy surely, but I couldn't help you?
 
 
 
You FOOL you just exposed yourself as a LIAR!
 
On page 6 of this very same thread you wrote:
 
Originally posted by nu001

I am a Muslim. And by born I inherit a Sunni point of view.
 
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

 You first prove that you are a Muslim, then talk about Shia Sunni. 
 
What exactly do you mean? My 2 and a half hour video isn't proof? Then what is "proof"??? What do you mean by proof?
 
You mean I should stop exposing Iran, that's what you really mean that's why you're not asking for anything specific.
 
Before you "Whisper" tried to test me by asking me some Farsi questions, after I answered he continued accusing me of being an "agent"...
 
So it doesn't matter what I show, say or do, you will continue to call me an "agent" for the sake of your Leader Khamenehi.
 
You have exposed yourself as a liar, and I KNEW you were doing Taqiyyah and now you yourself proved it.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

If the person/getup in your propaganda Video is not fake, you are even worse than a Christian and Jew. You are a Munafik.
 
 
The person is fake? LOL!
 
To any Muslims reading this, nu001 is referring to the person on this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=FYQSLpYKJn4 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=FYQSLpYKJn4
 
Im the man in the video who is speaking, nu001 claims that the man in the video is either a fake or an agent! Please watch the video and judge for yourselves.
 
You can also watch the video on liveleak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1211031572 - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1211031572
 
Originally posted by nu001

 You are a Munafik.
 
You actually exposed yourself as a Munafik by claiming to be Sunni and then denying it.
 
And you claim the Prophet (saw) wasn't Sunni...
 
And you constantly and blindly defend Iran over and over and over again...
 
Those who practice the so called "taqiyyah" are the real monafiqeen.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

  But believe me, you cannot make a Shia sunni division insha Allah, however hard you try.
 
 
I am not making a Shia sunni division, the Shiahs themselves made the division when they created the Shiah sect under the leadership of Abdollah ibn Saba who was Jewish.
 
The Shias helped the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan, but whenever Sunnis expose the Shiahs the Shia response is "dont create division, just let us kill you and help America kill you, but if you tell anyone that we are doing this then you are agents of America, but when we help America we are not agents of America..."
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

You have proven again that you are a paid agent to create a division amongst Muslims and I'm sure you are not alone, must be working in a team.  
 
 
And what do you base this on? What is your so called "proof"?
 
Your only supposed  "proof" is that Im exposing Iran. You cant even refute a SINGLE thing that I've said, yet you claim you have "proof" that Im a "payed agent".
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

You havn't provided evidence to show that many other Muslims have agreed to your anti Iran proaganda posts on same subject as this one.
 
 
 
Domain of Islam Forum:
 
http://darulislam.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2467 - http://darulislam.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2467
 
 
Here are some responses to my post regarding Hezboshaytan on that Forum:
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
salam

in the end you read my mind, brother. this is what should be considered as a kufr by Iran ''Islam Republic''. They take the christian countries as ally and the worst part is that they support them against the neighbouring muslim majority countries .
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yea, may Allah destroy those shi'asekts.
Thay are even a bigger proublem than the jews or Americans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Salaam Aleikum

I do believe it to be Hizb al shaytan (I only read the title of thread) but there was no need to waste resources by making 2 threads

Ma'asslaama
 
 
 
 
Islamicawakening Forum: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=9533 - http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=9533
 
Here no one agreed with me but they all wrote AGAINST IRAN, but simply couldn't get their head around my posts (they admitted that they didnt read the posts as my posts on that thread were very long).
 
In any case this shows how anti-Shiah and anti-Iran many Sunnis are.
 

Then this thread I wrote it simpler and shorter and so a few people agreed with me:
 
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=11714&page=2 - http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=11714&page=2
 
 
Assalamu alaikum

^ First time I'm actually falling for a conspiracy theory, subhanAllah.
 
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=11714&page=3 - http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=11714&page=3
 
However I do believe your first explanatory post on this thread about the (Raafidi) Shi'is conspiring against Ahlus Sunnah.
 
 
 
Those who disagreed with me on those Forums did so because they said my words contradicted the media and they thought I was overestimating the USA and Israel... but they are still verv anti-Iran and anti-Shia (some of them more so than me).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 9:38am

Sawtul Khilafah,

 

You wrote:  “... I then went on to explain that they [mainstream media and Obama supporters] want us to think that IRAN tricked the USA into invading Iraq!!  Now Obama seems to be implying the same thing ...”

I wrote:  I must respectfully disagree … I don’t hear Mr. Obama implying anything of the sort ….

You wrote: “Well my point is that Obama is not saying what Im saying …

 

Ok.  Let’s start over, from the top.  Where, through what published or broadcast statements of his (or are we to use some other method of divination?), has Mr. Obama suggested that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq?

 

Serv



Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 10:28am

Dear Agent Sawtul Khalifa,

What I said on my faith, both my statements are correct.

You havn't yet given the proof of your claim that, many people in other forum agrees with you on this topic. Means you lied.

You are a Jew / Christian / whatever, that doesn't matter to me. But muslims, don't accept such falsehood that you preach. Muslims need convincing proof, which you have failed to deliver. lying, false allegation, creating division, confusion etc these are act of satan only. better abstain from it in this forum.

That's good for you. It doesn't cost anything to be good.

-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 1:54pm
Originally posted by Servetus

 

Ok.  Let’s start over, from the top.  Where, through what published or broadcast statements of his (or are we to use some other method of divination?), has Mr. Obama suggested that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq?

 

Serv

 
I didn't say he said it, I said he SEEMS to be IMPLYING the same thing.  
 
This is because those in the media who support him have said it, so when he says USA benefited Iran he MAY be implying that Iran tricked the USA.
 
 
In any case the fact that the invaion of Iraq benefited Iran is no longer a secret, and so Obama, the mainstream media or anyone else saying it is not significant.
 
 
Remember you wrote:
 
Originally posted by Servetus

 In this recently published statement, that candidate seems to agree with one of your contentions
 
What Im saying is that his agreeing with this point of mine is not important since this is an obvious fact that is even reported on the mainstream media in the USA and even in Iran.
 
So either Obama means to say that the current administration is very incompetent, or he means that the USA was tricked by Iran. Either way he did not mean to say what Im saying.
 
So that does not mean that he not an Illuminati.
 
 
Iran is controled by Israel and the USA, and the USA knew that the war on Iraq will benefit Iran and they did so delibrately, and in fact they wanted it to benefit Iran even more than it has but in order to do so they had to destroy all Sunni resistance and then make it seem like Sadr defeated the occupation, but because the USA failed to defeat the Sunni resistance, they were unable to do this.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by nu001

Dear Agent Sawtul Khalifa,

What I said on my faith, both my statements are correct.

You havn't yet given the proof of your claim that, many people in other forum agrees with you on this topic. Means you lied.

You are a Jew / Christian / whatever, that doesn't matter to me. But muslims, don't accept such falsehood that you preach. Muslims need convincing proof, which you have failed to deliver. lying, false allegation, creating division, confusion etc these are act of satan only. better abstain from it in this forum.

That's good for you. It doesn't cost anything to be good.
 
You have been exposed as a liar and you are very pathetic. Anyone who read my last few posts would know this. I asked you if you are Sunni and you said you are NOT, but before you said you are Sunni, so you lied.
 
And I did give proof that members on other Forums agreed with me, I even posted links.
 
Nu001, the way you're lying makes it seem that you are under the impression that no one reads anyones posts except yours... I mean you ask a question, I answer, and then you say "you havent answered...". Well anyone who reads my posts will know that I did answer, and that you are full of it.
 
 


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 8:35pm
IMHO the temperature in here getting a bit high so everybody http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE - watch this Irack video to cool down; in the meantime I figure what I am going to say cuz I haven't kept track of this thread- I need to go all the way back!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: nu001
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 11:26pm
Hahaha, Catching fishes in muddy water??
 
Swat, your efforts are comical, Answering or discussion with you is pointless.
 
Thanks for the morning humor !!


-------------
"Al-Quran-The only Straight path to success. Alhamdulillah"


Posted By: Duende
Date Posted: 20 May 2008 at 3:24am
Sawtul, I think you are an earnest young man and very intelligent. However, you have allowed your intelligence to be clouded by an intense, deep rooted hatred which informs all of your opinions.

It is now clear to me that your intentions here are to denigrate and criticise the Iran regime by any means possible, because you see them to be the real enemies of Islam. It is also clear that you have utterly confused politics with faith in your own mind, and this damages your ability to find peace within yourself. It is also by the way, the main problem confronting Muslims today, in my opinion: the reconciling of political and religious thought.

You can not excorsise your previous existence as a Shi'ia here, in public, by placing all of the blame on Iran. What do you hope to gain by airing your belief that Iran is cooperating with Israel? The exchange with Servetus highlights, once again, the deeply childish premise that Obama said this because he thinks that and he can't say what I say because well, he doesn't know what I said, and anyway he's an illuminati, but in any case, I am right. Your argument is invalid, just because you say others agree with you doesn't validate it. It should make you think about what calibre of people are understanding you, and it should make you think about your motives: are you doing this to create some kind of status for yourself, or because you think there's something people can actually DO about the Iranian regime?

Nuu01 is trying to point out that the labels Sunni and Shi'ia are not granted by God. These are the inventions of man. They are not from the Koran and therefore he seems ot be saying the same as I am: by focussing so much on the sectarian differences, we are harming Islam, and for heaven's sake, we do NOT need any more people stirring up division.

By joining the anti-Shi'ia propaganda wagon you are confirming Israel's and Washington's policies, you are adding flames to the ongoing and rising inter-faith strife: NOT adding peacefull dialogue and debate. If there is one aim of the fundamentalist zio-cons it is to cause such internal antagonism within Islam that the religion turns against itself and begins to self destruct.

Do you see this happening within Judaism? I think not, they are far too intelligent to allow that to happen. It seems Muslims, having been sufficiently provoked by almost a century of politically motivated apartheid (the seizing of lands, the carving up of territories, the imposition of sheiks, chiefs, Shas and Kings) have now been targetted as the world's most dangerous religion. What good do you expect to come from your insistence on spreading the word of hate against other Muslims?



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 3:50pm

Sawtul Khilafah,

 

I asked: “Where, through what published or broadcast statements of his (or are we to use some other method of divination?), has Mr. Obama suggested that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq?”

 

You had previously written: “I actually warned about this [some time ago here: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=5  I showed that the mainstream media (the same people who support Obama) have started to reveal this conspiracy that I wrote about.... BUT in a misleading way. I then went on to explain that they want us to think that IRAN tricked the USA into invading Iraq!!  Now Obama seems to be implying the same thing...”

 

I followed your link (back to page 5).  It also took me to Comedy Central.  That was a relief, if only a comedic one.  I notice, incidentally, that you twice identify “interviewer” Jon Stewart as Jewish.  I wonder.  Does this somehow preclude him from being a proper comedian?  If so, and if Jews can’t be comedians, then please explain Sophie Tucker or Jerry Seinfeld.

 

I’m just joking.  That was my attempt at schtick.

 

But seriously.   I was unable to watch the interview (because I usually post from public library computers which disallow video, unfortunately at times for me, please note Sign-Reader) but did search the interviewed subject, journalist Aram Roston.  I read one of his articles published in the more credible, if Leftist, The Nation (link provided below), and do not read where at any point Mr. Roston is ever either confused concerning Ahmad Chalabi’s nationality or mistakes the “I” in Chalabi’s “INC,” or Iraqi National Congress, for Iran.  I presume that your sending us to the Comedy Central is your proof of the “misleading way” but, though I try, I still fail to see how Mr. Obama is saying, suggesting, or even seemingly implying that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Serv

Ref:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by Servetus

Sawtul Khilafah,
I followed your link
(to page 5 of a preexisting thread, from which point I started to read).  It also took me to Comedy Central.  That was a relief, if only a comedic one.  I notice, incidentally, that you twice and correctly identify “interviewer” Jon Stewart as Jewish.  I wonder.  Does this somehow preclude him from being a proper comedian?  If so, and if Jews can’t be comedians, then please explain Sophie Tucker or Jerry Seinfeld.

 

I’m just joking.  That was my attempt at schtick.

 

But seriously.   I was unable to watch the interview (because I usually post from public library computers which disallow video, unfortunately at times for me, please note Sign-Reader) but did search the interviewed subject, journalist Aram Roston.  I read one of his articles published in the more credible, if Leftist, The Nation (link provided below), and do not read where at any point Mr. Roston is ever either confused concerning Ahmad Chalabi’s nationality or mistakes the “I” in Chalabi’s “INC,” or Iraqi National Congress, for Iran.  I presume that your sending us to the Comedy Central is your proof of the “misleading way” but, though I try, I still fail to see how Mr. Obama is seemingly implying, suggesting or saying that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq.

 

Serv

Ref:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston

 
For the last time, I said he MAY be implying the same thing. His supporters say Iran tricked the USA into going to war with Iraq which benefited Iran, and I said MAYBE when Obama said the invasion benefited Iran and Bush has a lot to answer for, he meant the same thing.
 

Regarding Jon Stewart, I only said he is Jewish ONCE, not twice. However I copied and pasted my post again later, maybe that's why you think I said it twice.
 
And I said it because Im often accused of being a Jew by Whisper, Duende and nu001 (although at other times they call me an American, or a smart young Muslim who is foolishly falling for Zionist propaganda, or a mentally retarded person... their accusations are not at all consistant which makes it obvious that they themselves dont really believe that Im any of the things they accuse me of...)
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 10:19am

SK,

 

You wrote:  “His [Obama’s] supporters say Iran tricked the USA into going to war …”

 

Where have his supporters said this?  Are you referring to Jon Stewart and Comedy Central?

 

You wrote:  “Regarding Jon Stewart, I only said he is Jewish ONCE, not twice. However I copied and pasted my post again later, maybe that's why you think I said it twice.”

 

Yes, for some strange reason, it was probably because you repeated yourself, by copying and pasting your statement, that I thought you twice identified Jon Stewart as Jewish.

  

Serv



Posted By: Sawtul Khilafah
Date Posted: 26 May 2008 at 8:24am
Here's an interesting video on Obama: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NKBs15WrDTA - http://youtube.com/watch?v=NKBs15WrDTA  (it's made by Hillary's supporters but it's still interesting).
 
Obama says Iran is not a threat, and at another time said Iran is a GREAT THREAT!!!
 
Why? well the video doesn't say it, but the reason has to do with what I've been saying all along.
 
When Obama talks about WAR WITH IRAN, he says he does not want war with Iran because Iran is not a threat...
 
But when talking about ISRAEL, Obama portrays Iran as Israel's number one enemy...
 
If you read my posts on this thread and the "USA benefits Iran" thread, you will see that the USA and Israel have for a long time been portraying Iran as their biggest enemy, but at the same time doing NOTHING against Iran.
 
Iran has supposedly been a bigger threat than Saddam and the Taliban, yet the USA did not invade Iran but instead invaded Iran's enemies... but they have been saying for a VERY long time that they supposedly want to destroy the Iranian Government, but every time they come up with an excuse to not do it...
 
I have shown how the Media portrays Iran as being the biggest enemy of the USA, claiming that Iran is arming Iraqi Resistance and even the Taliban, and then they saying: "we must invade Iran because of what they are doing to us", and shortly after it's like "sorry, we have no evidence that Iran did it, so we can't attack them yet".
 
Supposedly now more than ever the USA wants to invade Iran and we keep hearing of plans to attack Iran within the next few months (we've been hearing these lies for years) but its never happening supposedly because of the war on Iraq (where Iran is actually helping the USA).
 
The media would have us believe that just now, within a very short time there is going to be a war with Iran... and that the only thing that can prevent this from happening is the election of Obama... as Obama says he does not want a war with Iran at all...
 
However despite not wanting war with Iran, Obama still does his job of portraying Iran as USA and Israel's BIGGEST ENEMY or "biggest threat", in order to decieve the world and especially Muslims that Iran is independent and genuine.
 
It's all part of their plan to manipulate and decieve.
 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Servetus

You wrote:  “His [Obama’s] supporters say Iran tricked the USA into going to war …”

 

Where have his supporters said this?  Are you referring to Jon Stewart and Comedy Central?

 
Well yes that's one example since they always praise Obama on their show and make fun of his opponenets (and this has a very strong effect since the show is very popular in the United States) but I have heard other Obama supproters say it too.



Print Page | Close Window