Iranian cargo plane shot down over Damascus airport

[randolph85]

I don't know much about this tufayli guy, but I agree with him according to the views he expressed in that video.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Dagarwal wrorra,

For my learning,

Question 1: whats your view on Iran's relationship with the West? Specifically do you think they are secretly friends or do you think that rather they hate eachother but are willing to work together to neutralize sunnis?

Question 2: whats the view of Saudi about Syria and whats the view of Iran about Syria and finally, whats your view on the international insults between Russia and America over Syria, etc?

Question 3: what do you think about the history with the Shah of Iran and Ayatollah Khomenei and the Iranian revolution?

I have never been to Iran and have talked to Iranians and read the history etc, but admit that it was only over time and only after reading some of their religious books that I began to see the really major theological issues between sunni and shiah.

so this leads me to question 4:
Question 4: Do you think that Iranians are behind their leadership in these issues in Syria or do you suspect that Iran is like most countries where there are a large number of people who are apolitical and are just trying to live etc? But another more vocal group is brain washed, etc.

Question 5: Is iran basically in it for itself and is there real conflict between Saudi and iran? If so, who instigates it and who started it?

[Catya Sher]

^ Excellent questions, well put.

Idiot, I assume that's you -
I am NOT a Shia Propagandist.
I never said I favor the Alawite regime.
I just don't want the denizens of Hell to take over that
extremely complex and historic country, Syria.
I have traveled ALL over it, to every corner and every major city
and archeological spot. You name it, I have probably been there
at least once.
Why? Because it's fascinating and I made the effort to go where most
people shuddered in fear of ... nothing at all. They believed all the scare stories
of the Western media and missed out on a wonderful country and meeting an urbane people.

These heirs of a great civilization [MANY, in fact ! Not just one civilization]
deserve much better than either Assad OR the you know who's
being pushed into power there if Assad falls.

So let him win out briefly, then decent Islamic forces peacefully take over.
Not the faction peddled by western officialdom to be "saviors of the country" !

Syrians are moderate and not that Islamic so they couldn't tolerate
a very strong Islamic government ; not until they
get used to it gradually.
The only way they would accept that would be for a leader to arise
who is well-balanced but serious about Islam and morally upright, so
to inspire respect, rather than the fear created by Papa Assad [Hafez] and
Son - and their Mukhabarat.

Islamic courts should be used, not secular ones.

All this would have to be introduced carefully, considerately. Without heavy-handedness.
For Syrians are far too smart to be taken in by the Fake Al-Q. Crowd of Barbarian - Cannibals...

How could YOU support the latter ?! You are civilized !
You read your Quran carefully and know a lot about Islam. Right?

So don't attack me, just think of what is really likely or possible for Syria,
given its difficult decades squashed under the iron fist of the Assads.

Figure out a CONSTRUCTIVE solution for them !

[Manzareh]

I doubt Dagarwal even understood those questions let alone give you a reply.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I doubt Dagarwal even understood those questions let alone give you a reply.

Dagarwal is a great guy. I really want to hear what his view is- ie the questions are not to show him up

[Badlun]

I think we can agree its a political war going on, so lets break down the political needs of the people on both sides

1) America NEEDs to govern Syria through puppets as a defence against a possible threat of Iran

2) Israel need their own security and class Syria, Lebanon etc their land just how they claim Palestine their land, they want to expand into greater Israel as they call it

3) Russia and china acknowledge America and Israels agenda and don't want no more of their dominance too close to their ties with oil and also military strategic placement of the region. Their meddling is too much for comfort for them. But the west is keeping it sweet with each other because they are united with secularism.

Syria is a piece of meat with hungry dogs on all sides ripping it and wanting a peice for themselves, kinda like the hadith that says toward end of days muslims will be attacked from all sides just how hungry dogs fight over meat.

4) Iran see this as a last stand against Israel and America, they have to have bashers back not only to gain his allegiance against Israels threat but also because the rebels are rogue barbarians that happen to be Sunnis and will fight against Hezbollah Shias and pose another threat to Shias, a population that Iran is full of.


5) As for basher, he knows his days are done because of Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddaffi and now its him next and there is no easy way out, I don't agree with his faith or how he's persecuting people but he has a valid point about foreign international 'terrorists' (labeled as terrorists by US/NATO) which are being deployed in syria and funded by the same people, the excuse im hearing from rebel supporters is to let these so called terrorists invade Syria and overthrow the government through war because they are not allowed to keep a beard at work, politacally speaking he is defending his country from foreign invasion (rebel fighters doing dirty work for US) and I think that its not a big enough reason to start a civil massacre and spark a inevitable genocide because by really and truly if the 25,000,000 population of syria wanted a change so bad all these years you would here about it before all these revolutions taking place and they would be doing it themselves BUT instead they are begging foreign fighters to leave the country

All that is gonna happen funding rebels is loads of unnecessary killings and murders, this basher prick is going to go down but also take many innocents down with him aswel. After this war is over there will be some few days celebrations and flag waving, Basher's face being burnt and people screaming and shariah will be implemented for 2 months, then these rebels are not going to be able to form a stable government or be civilised, making the Syrian infulstructre and economy collapse and the country is going to turn into another Iraq, just a barren desert with rebel warlords and high influx of crime and corruption, after all this then it will begin with over the worldwide media coverage and the country going to be labeled as "insecure and harbouring terrorists" (previously called mujahideen rebels) and the result? a direct threat to Israels security giving reason for all the western bully's to team up as usual invade and dominate and achieve the goal of greater Israel with a huge middle eastern US nuclear Military base.

These are exactly my reflections and sentiments on the issue of Syria.

I will only add that the enmity between Sunnis and Shias blind us totally. If Asad was a Sunni or a Salafi then may be some people would only change their thoughts and would be in favor of him as people like dagarwal who is against Aasad were in favor of Saddam or Qaddafi because they were Sunnis although the same mass murderers and dictators.

The immediate solution to Syria imbroglio is that Aasad steps down and announce general elections he being a candidate.

[ډګروال]

Dagarwal wrorra,

For my learning,

Question 1: whats your view on Iran's relationship with the West? Specifically do you think they are secretly friends or do you think that rather they hate eachother but are willing to work together to neutralize sunnis?

i think the iranians are shouting slogans simply to gain political influence around the world. in fact Iran was involved in invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.They gained influence both in politics and economics of Afghanistan.
The ministery of science is under their control. In Iraq even more so.

Question 2: whats the view of Saudi about Syria and whats the view of Iran about Syria and finally, whats your view on the international insults between Russia and America over Syria, etc?

saudi gov just like Iran try to gain influence but the people of arabia do sympathise with the FSA and might even support them. It has to do with being sunni and arab. There is also this beef amongst Iran and Saudi which has to do with being Arab and Iranian.The biggest supporter of Syrian revolution has been Turkya.
Iran wants to keep Assad in power and has sent weapons and men to fight against a sunni uprising. The majority of the syrians are sunnis and are ruled by an alawite minority who deny them their rights. So it is logical that they need Iran and Russia to back them up.Iran and Russia has openly supported Assad and supplied him with sophiasticated weapons to defeat the opposition.
Russian and Iranian media have been trying to distort the facts from day one.
Totally one sided and cleverly made use of the conspiracy theory folk.
Russia is heavily involved militarily and also vocally while america less so.

Question 3: what do you think about the history with the Shah of Iran and Ayatollah Khomenei and the Iranian revolution?

this is a tough one and i cant say i knwo iranian history that well.
As far as i know the Shah of Iran overthrew mosadeq and ruled much like any middle eastern dicator. he wasnt a threat a threat to Afghanistan though and i think relations were neutral. After the revolution Iran started meddeling in Afghan affairs and also in affairs of other countries.

I have never been to Iran and have talked to Iranians and read the history etc, but admit that it was only over time and only after reading some of their religious books that I began to see the really major theological issues between sunni and shiah.

so this leads me to question 4:
Question 4: Do you think that Iranians are behind their leadership in these issues in Syria or do you suspect that Iran is like most countries where there are a large number of people who are apolitical and are just trying to live etc? But another more vocal group is brain washed, etc.

I think a great chunk of Iranian population is against the Iranian totalitarian regime but they have simply been shut down and persecuted.The sunni population of Iran has been denied basic rights such as having their own mosque and madrassa and not even one sunni parliamentair.
obviously some Iranians do support and even voluteer to be sent to syria and even some Afghans have been sent by iran to syria.

Question 5: Is iran basically in it for itself and is there real conflict between Saudi and iran? If so, who instigates it and who started it?

Iranians after their revolution want to export their shia revolution to other muslim countries and also they have become partners in international politics.

Also we shouldnt forget that Iranian regine is inspired by shiasm and the whole twelf imam package. . The saudis are not representatives fo sunnis as Iran is representative of shias.

[ډګروال]

These are exactly my reflections and sentiments on the issue of Syria.

I will only add that the enmity between Sunnis and Shias blind us totally. If Asad was a Sunni or a Salafi then may be some people would only change their thoughts and would be in favor of him as people like dagarwal who is against Aasad were in favor of Saddam or Qaddafi because they were Sunnis although the same mass murderers and dictators.

The immediate solution to Syria imbroglio is that Aasad steps down and announce general elections he being a candidate.

saddam ,qadafi,bin ali ,mubarak are all the same arab seculer nationalists.
much like you.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Aasad were in favor of Saddam or Qaddafi because they were Sunnis although the same mass murderers and dictators.
.

Actually; I hate to admit this but Dagarwal is right; ALL the ones you have mentioned were Secularists

They were from a Sunni background; just like you are also from a Sunni background but Their governments were 100% Secular.

This is evidence that Real Secularism does not work for Muslims.

[Badlun]

saddam ,qadafi,bin ali ,mubarak are all the same arab seculer nationalists.
much like you.

Who is your ideal leader in today"s world then?

[ډګروال]

Who is your ideal leader in today"s world then?

Erdogan of Turkya is a great leader compared to other leaders of muslim world.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

i think the iranians are shouting slogans simply to gain political influence around the world. in fact Iran was involved in invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.They gained influence both in politics and economics of Afghanistan.
The ministery of science is under their control. In Iraq even more so.


saudi gov just like Iran try to gain influence but the people of arabia do sympathise with the FSA and might even support them. It has to do with being sunni and arab. There is also this beef amongst Iran and Saudi which has to do with being Arab and Iranian.The biggest supporter of Syrian revolution has been Turkya.
Iran wants to keep Assad in power and has sent weapons and men to fight against a sunni uprising. The majority of the syrians are sunnis and are ruled by an alawite minority who deny them their rights. So it is logical that they need Iran and Russia to back them up.Iran and Russia has openly supported Assad and supplied him with sophiasticated weapons to defeat the opposition.
Russian and Iranian media have been trying to distort the facts from day one.
Totally one sided and cleverly made use of the conspiracy theory folk.
Russia is heavily involved militarily and also vocally while america less so.



this is a tough one and i cant say i knwo iranian history that well.
As far as i know the Shah of Iran overthrew mosadeq and ruled much like any middle eastern dicator. he wasnt a threat a threat to Afghanistan though and i think relations were neutral. After the revolution Iran started meddeling in Afghan affairs and also in affairs of other countries.




I think a great chunk of Iranian population is against the Iranian totalitarian regime but they have simply been shut down and persecuted.The sunni population of Iran has been denied basic rights such as having their own mosque and madrassa and not even one sunni parliamentair.
obviously some Iranians do support and even voluteer to be sent to syria and even some Afghans have been sent by iran to syria.



Iranians after their revolution want to export their shia revolution to other muslim countries and also they have become partners in international politics.

Also we shouldnt forget that Iranian regine is inspired by shiasm and the whole twelf imam package. . The saudis are not representatives fo sunnis as Iran is representative of shias.

Excellent response - thanks.

What are your thoughts on closing ranks? What I mean is, should sunnis and shiahs (specifically Arabia and Iran) sit down and look at the bigger picture?

If the outsider powers are at times working with both of them for their own gains and are very happy with internal strife in that region -

would an equitable solution be that sunnis regain Syria and have their own governance as they deserve, but that some sort of treaties are drafted between these groups that say:

1) Sunnis and Shiites agree to disagree - rhetoric will be toned down and each group will keep to themselves and since their numbers are too many now, neither group will try to dominate the other?

2) Sunnis and Shiites will work together for the benefit of the whole region and keep to their respective areas and not let kharijaan instigate jangoona between them

3) This means that supply lines and trade routes wont be shut down (which are acts of war) between their respective groups

4) They will remove respective tyrannies in their region and cooperate when it comes to using natural resources and internal trade.

5) Extremists in both camps that try to instigate conflict between the two will be neutralized, but at the same time both groups are allowed to restrict intermarriage and avoid moves that create conflict etc.

6) Explanation to both groups that historically when tribes divide against eachother, it makes it easier for kharijaan to walk in and fight them against eachother and use them for their own gain (e.g. when Tecumseh and Metacom had to deal with invaders and some tribes were back stabbing the independent indian groups or down in South American when the Spanish were raping and pillaging and giving gold to some leaders to buy them off). Also explaining to them that when kharijaan finish off one of their enemies they will come for the other one too.

What are your thoughts, can such an approach be taken?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

If a person says I believe that your mother is a fornicator and she poisoned your dad but lets agree to disagree and look at the bigger picture. What would be your response?

Excellent response - thanks.

What are your thoughts on closing ranks? What I mean is, should sunnis and shiahs (specifically Arabia and Iran) sit down and look at the bigger picture?

If the outsider powers are at times working with both of them for their own gains and are very happy with internal strife in that region -

would an equitable solution be that sunnis regain Syria and have their own governance as they deserve, but that some sort of treaties are drafted between these groups that say:

1) Sunnis and Shiites agree to disagree - rhetoric will be toned down and each group will keep to themselves and since their numbers are too many now, neither group will try to dominate the other?

2) Sunnis and Shiites will work together for the benefit of the whole region and keep to their respective areas and not let kharijaan instigate jangoona between them

3) This means that supply lines and trade routes wont be shut down (which are acts of war) between their respective groups

4) They will remove respective tyrannies in their region and cooperate when it comes to using natural resources and internal trade.

5) Extremists in both camps that try to instigate conflict between the two will be neutralized, but at the same time both groups are allowed to restrict intermarriage and avoid moves that create conflict etc.

6) Explanation to both groups that historically when tribes divide against eachother, it makes it easier for kharijaan to walk in and fight them against eachother and use them for their own gain (e.g. when Tecumseh and Metacom had to deal with invaders and some tribes were back stabbing the independent indian groups or down in South American when the Spanish were raping and pillaging and giving gold to some leaders to buy them off). Also explaining to them that when kharijaan finish off one of their enemies they will come for the other one too.

What are your thoughts, can such an approach be taken?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

If a person says I believe that your mother is a fornicator and she poisoned your dad but lets agree to disagree and look at the bigger picture. What would be your response?

I'd weigh risks and benefits bro.

If that person can only use words and they cause me to lose my balance and engage in resource depleting war making or cause me to expose my flank and permit those with even greater strength to play puppet master with us both - I'd use a smarter strategy.

If that person led a clan or a faction and I saw that the majority in his clan or faction were as blind as those in my clan and faction but were not as committed to causing consternation - Id appeal to common humanity and interests.

I would never cede power or allow for a system that would permit said minority in some regions to gain control and then become dictatorial masters above my people (e.g. hafiz al assad) - but our joint incentive would be that a stronger united front will

A) Allow us to examine history in its totality. There is a menace that has shown it has the ability to exterminate indigenous life in TWO massive continents and to relegate these people to drunkard, small pox murdered, and second class citizens.

Tecumseh the Brave saw this and understood it but his Shawnee forbearers were so short sighted that when they cooperated with colonialists they sold them some guns, allowed them to keep some lands, and gave them access to some liquors in order to decimate their opponents. Then, said group came for his people next.

This is what will happen if these two large sects don't think far ahead. The divide and conquer strategy has been used in Vietnam, Korea, and in many Muslim countries.

So is your preference to focus on smashing Khatami, Amadinijaad, and Khamanei or avoiding a situation like the Algonquins or Iraquois face where your descendents will run casinos on their "reservations" and call themselves Tom Ahmadzai and Billy Dorani?

B) Establish a strong power in its own region that is independent when it comes to economics and resources. It can be federated to allow for this separation of sorts.

C) If someone is calling my dad and mom that and has no merit, and I know it, I would bide my time and not let their attempts to anger me or draw me in to a conflict that would weaken me economically or militarily.

D) I would take comfort in the fact that Shiahism is a philosophy and an ideology that lacks historical or theological merit. i.e. he can insult my mother or father as much as he wants, but I would be self confident knowing this mother and father were those actual things (i.e. his inferiority complex would be apparent)

In this proposed set up the sunni states will naturally have the best access to meritocratic set ups. The best will lead.

The Shiite theology though interposes an imaam. This will naturally lead to some internal discontent once they are allowed to self reflect.

Overtime, without an external enemy, they would have the chance to read their own theologies and compare.

Some of the most recent scholarly papers on the Quran and its early manuscripts resulted in German scholars leveling some criticisms at Shiite assertions (i.e. the truth revealed itself to even independent observers).

* Bottom line is that there is no historical precedent where this war of attrition between two large tribes or groups simultaneously dealing with an external power at the same has ever benefited both of the involved parties. Rather, history has shown time and time again that the end result is often decimation for both.

This has allowed kharijaan to inject the even more dangerous and deceptive nonsensical ideologies into a vocal minority (e.g. secular nationalism/secular democracy) in both camps.

[Khostai]

Actually; I hate to admit this but Dagarwal is right; ALL the ones you have mentioned were Secularists

They were from a Sunni background; just like you are also from a Sunni background but Their governments were 100% Secular.

This is evidence that Real Secularism does not work for Muslims.

No its an evidence that dictatorship doesn't work be it Islamic or secular.....