Morsi pisses off Iran

[randolph85]

i say good for him

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iran-slams-egypt-s-morsi-over-remarks-on-syria-1.461974

Iran on Friday criticized Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi over his remarks on Syria at the Non-Aligned Movement summit, saying he did not have "the necessary political maturity."
Morsi said at the opening ceremony Thursday that "solidarity with the Syrian people against an oppressive regime that lost its legitimacy is a moral obligation.”
Hossein Sheikholeslam, the Iranian Parliament's Middle East advisor, said: "Unfortunately Mr Morsi did not have the necessary political maturity to lead a NAM summit."
Sheikholeslam told the Mehr news agency, "He committed a big mistake by availing himself of his position (as NAM president) and expressing the standpoints of Egypt while ignoring all NAM principles."
Sheikholeslam, a former deputy foreign minister, was not only the first Iranian official to criticize Morsi but also the first who acknowledged that he made those remarks.
Morsi's address also led to another embarrassment for NAM host Iran as the Syrian delegation walked out during his speech.
Iranian state media did not report the anti-Syria parts of Morsi's speech or the walk out by the Syrian delegation.Iran had pinned high hopes on Morsi's visit - the first by an Egyptian head of state in more than 30 years. The two countries have had no formal diplomatic ties since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution because of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.
Tehran had not only hoped to resume full diplomatic relations after Morsi became president, but also, as a staunch supporter of Syrian President Bashar Assad, attract Cairo as an ally to keep the Syrian regime in power.

[Afghanistan2010]

Good job, he should have spitted into the faces of these pendejos

[Shah-i-Kot]

Morsi perhaps is strategically making Egypt the center of regional influence and power.

He has shifted away from the US, and he is putting forth his support for the legitimate Syrian rights, not Western geopolitical interests which Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE (the petrodollar three) are doing.



By bringing Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey to talk with Egypt about the Syrian solution, Morsi is pretty much ensuring that the new Syria will take the form of Egypt, and break away from serving any geopolitical interests, especially Western. His regional solution puts in place an independent government that neither of the above actually wanted to see in the first place. Iran wanted to have a pro-Iran government. US, Saudis, UAE, Qatar wanted to have a pro-US Libyan style puppet regime.

[randolph85]

i see iranian and russian media saying that morsi did this because he is loyal to the US. **** russia and **** iran, the truth stands out from falsehood and their aspirations will be left in a puddle of **** along with al assads dead body.

[Shah-i-Kot]

i see iranian and russian media saying that morsi did this because he is loyal to the US. **** russia and **** iran, the truth stands out from falsehood and their aspirations will be left in a puddle of **** along with al assads dead body.

Well, I doubt that statement can be credible when they (Iran and Russia) state it because Morsi has moved away from a strategic relationship with the US which had been in place under Hosni. Morsi is putting Egypt on a path of strategic independence.


In regards to Syria, how do you reconcile terming the Afghan insurgency/Taliban as Pakistan proxies, but not use the same logic with regards to the Syrian insurgency being US/Saudi/Qatar proxies?

There are major differences here for one. In Syria, there is no foreign occupying army (aside from the small and insignificant Russian Tartus base), but in Afghanistan, there is a foreign occupying army in the form of NATO.

P.S

For sakes of the argument, we are assuming that Pakistan supports the Afghan insurgency and plays a double game (despite the fact that the whole NATO war is due to Pakistan support).

[faye]

well egypt is still collecting aid from you yanks, lynx. so how far will he go?
one article i read proposed to start holding back a bit on u.s.aid, or threatening to.
they have been getting a coupla billion a year since 79 or whereabouts, according to another article.

[Shah-i-Kot]

i see iranian and russian media saying that morsi did this because he is loyal to the US. **** russia and **** iran, the truth stands out from falsehood and their aspirations will be left in a puddle of **** along with al assads dead body.

You also stated that the Afghan insurgency takes marching orders from Rawalpindi.

Now the question I have is do you also believe that the Syrian insurgency takes marching orders from Riyadh, Istanbul, Doha, or Washington?

[randolph85]

Well, I doubt that statement can be credible when they (Iran and Russia) state it because Morsi has moved away from a strategic relationship with the US which had been in place under Hosni. Morsi is putting Egypt on a path of strategic independence.

what do the russians and irans care about independence? they loathe independence from regional and world powers as much as the US and israel do, depending on what country it is. independence means that the party in question won't side with one sphere's enemy but also won't side with that sphere. the uprising in syria is led by ikhwanis, and iran/russia would much prefer the status quo of a POS assad than a sunni brotherhood dominated or friendly government. the loss of syria for russia means a loss of an ally that buys a lot of weapons and the loss of a regional clout. for iran it means the loss of legitimacy in the arab world and a loss of influence in lebanon and links to hezbollah. even hamas has tried to distance itself from syria and iranian influence since the uprising.

In regards to Syria, how do you reconcile terming the Afghan insurgency/Taliban as Pakistan proxies, but not use the same logic with regards to the Syrian insurgency being US/Saudi/Qatar proxies?

There are major differences here for one. In Syria, there is no foreign occupying army (aside from the small and insignificant Russian Tartus base), but in Afghanistan, there is a foreign occupying army in the form of NATO.

afghan groups have had a long history of isi tutelage since during the time of daoud. the taliban was recognized only by 3 countries, the other 2 arab countries only using pakistan as a go between. pakistan controlled all access to the taliban during their reign between foreign dignitaries, mullah zaeef says this in his book.

regarding syria, its free army has basically been recognized by ever major country on earth besides iran, russia, and china. but who knows what is going on behind the scenes. iranians just recently admitted that they have agents working inside syria, so there are foreigners there. like egypt, the brotherhood have a politically mature base in which they can administer a nation while relying on the support of the majority of people. this is while they have the sympathy and support of the world and a halfway decent economy. the opposite was true in afghanistan and to sustain the war against the NA, the taliban had to turn to pakistan, a country which had its claws in afghanistan 17 years before the taliban took kandahar.

For sakes of the argument, we are assuming that Pakistan supports the Afghan insurgency and plays a double game (despite the fact that the whole NATO war is due to Pakistan support).

support long term interests(taliban) while supporting US interests short term(US war). getting paid by the US like the ***** pakistan is and knowing its long term bet will pay off after the US leaves. its not a hard concept to understand. iran was taking weapons and money from israel to fight iraq that was funded by america, while both israel and america laughed at their enemies killing each other.

[randolph85]

You also stated that the Afghan insurgency takes marching orders from Rawalpindi.

Now the question I have is do you also believe that the Syrian insurgency takes marching orders from Riyadh, Doha, or Washington?

nope, i have NEVER said that. a few months ago you said the same exact thing and i asked you for any proof that you had and you could not provide it. this is a forum full of people i don't know, so i don't exactly have a reason to lie for the sake of my online reputation.

back to your question, NO the free army does not take marching orders from foreigners. are they helped by them? no doubt. saudis support them because they hate assad more than they hate the brotherhood and americans support them to weaken iran. the afghan mujahadin were also supported by these same nations in the 80s.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You also stated that the Afghan insurgency takes marching orders from Rawalpindi.

It's not Randolph that says it but Taliban members themselves; there was recently a video of a Taliban captive who VERIFIED that the Taliban have admitted to him that Taliban would never have fired one shot unless Islamabad said so.

[Shah-i-Kot]

nope, i have NEVER said that. a few months ago you said the same exact thing and i asked you for any proof that you had and you could not provide it.

You said that the Taliban take marching orders from Pakistan and are Paki proxies.

[Shah-i-Kot]

nope, i have NEVER said that. a few months ago you said the same exact thing and i asked you for any proof that you had and you could not provide it.

Fair enough, if you want to play with semantics on what you exactly said, well we will put it aside.

I do indeed remember you stating that the Taliban are Paki proxies who take marching orders from Pakistan.

You have generally stated that the Taliban are Pakistan proxies.

Now I want to know are the Syrian insurgents, (Free Syrian Army) Turkish/US/Saudi/Qatari proxies? Turkey recently gave anti-aircraft weapons to the Free Syrian Army.

Just answer the question.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

here's the video ..and just in case you try back peddling and trying to scapegoat this and label it "propaganda". here you are affirming his hypothesis

It was and is a war against Pashtuns,

Taliban prisoner: 'They will not surrender' - YouTube

go to 5:50

"Not a shot would be fired in Afghanistan, without Pakistan's permission"

check mate

[randolph85]

Fair enough, if you want to play with semantics on what you exactly said, well we will put it aside.

I do indeed remember you stating that the Taliban are Paki proxies who take marching orders from Pakistan.

You have generally stated that the Taliban are Pakistan proxies.

Now I want to know are the Syrian insurgents, (Free Syrian Army) Turkish/US/Saudi/Qatari proxies? Turkey recently gave anti-aircraft weapons to the Free Syrian Army.

Just answer the question.

you claiming something which i deny and i have denied in the past but you can't prove is just semantics? lol what???

i don't know anyone on this forum nor do they know me. i say whatever the hell i want and i have no reputation to protect.

i have said and will say that the taliban are ****. i love their original movement but they became ****, i think many of them are criminals and will face hellfire for their crimes. no i am not talking some western narrated bull**** about womens rights or that nonsense, i am talking about killing muslims like they are nothing.

now if i spew this venom on the taliban now, why in the hell would i deny that i said the taliban are working on paki marching orders?

an afghan entity doesn't have to be controlled by foreigners in order to be trash. don't make libel on me.

[Shah-i-Kot]

you claiming something which i deny and i have denied in the past but you can't prove is just semantics? lol what???

i don't know anyone on this forum nor do they know me. i say whatever the hell i want and i have no reputation to protect.

i have said and will say that the taliban are ****. i love their original movement but they became ****, i think many of them are criminals and will face hellfire for their crimes. no i am not talking some western narrated bull**** about womens rights or that nonsense, i am talking about killing muslims like they are nothing.

now if i spew this venom on the taliban now, why in the hell would i deny that i said the taliban are working on paki marching orders?

an afghan entity doesn't have to be controlled by foreigners in order to be trash. don't make libel on me.

Libel. LOL its your widely held belief that Taliban are "Paki proxies." You have stated that all the time. This is not some breaking news my friend.

Here is your weak attempt at denying it. http://www.pashtunforums.com/showthr...andolph&page=3

Oh ok, so the Taliban are not complete proxies of Pakistan- so they are partial proxies. I never knew there was such a thing as partial proxies. So I guess the same logic is now what you use for the Free Syrian Army?

Just answer the question.

huh? wasn't the entire iraq debacle based on fake justifications?



in one of my posts the other day i said i didn't believe the taliban were behind the poisonings. lies = justification for actions.



yes, whoever holds power in kabul and commands an army are the afghan government. its not a difficult concept to understand, this doesn't mean the government is legitimate. but now you are just lying about my view on the taliban because i have never said they are complete paki proxies, and you know that. so don't bother trying to slander my views.

Just answer the question.

Are the Syrian insurgents complete Turkish/US/Saudi/Qataru proxies or partial proxies? What is the level of their proxiness? If not a complete proxy, then what?

Please describe the levels of proxiness that exist.

Are they not complete proxies? I never knew there was a discussion here on the level of proxiness of the Taliban in regards to Pakistan (aside from the one above where you have coined this new perspective of levels of proxiness).