Comments

• 

  Roaring Lovely January 19, 2022 at 7:55am

  Let me summarize it this way to help you grasp it:
  1.)Iraqi Shias will fight Irani Shias even if they are trying to topple a Sunni dictator they don't want in Iraq. They will do the same thing to Americans.
  3.) If Iran uses excessive technology such as a hugely superior air force, they will retreat but they will not surrender. This will allow Iran to topple the dictator. Then the Shias will return to wage a guerrilla war against the Iranis to ecpell them. They will do the same thing to Americans!
  3.)If Iran is not fighting Iraq, the Iraqi Shias will always support Iran. The same is not the case with the Americans, and other 'kafirs'!
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 19, 2022 at 7:42am

  

  Having this understanding of Shias and Sunnis in mind. Now stop and contemplate this puzzle: How could Americans think that they could Topple Saddam (a dictator in a Shia majority country), with the hope of creating a Pro- American democracy in Iraq that can even be its partner in its hostility towards Iran?? Will the Iraqi Shias realy be more willing to listen to a 'kafir' from Washington than Ayatollahs, even in hostility towards the Ayatollahs be believes to be a descendant of Muhammad? It looks completely silly to expect such!
  
  But they were bamboozled by the Iran-Iraq war in a way that shows that the American elites had a very thin understanding of politics. A monumental lesson was awaiting! Now Irani Shias were not able to divide Iraqi and woo the Shia majority, knocking down Saddam. So at first, it seems to suggest that the Shias in Iraq are too patriotic to ever listen to their fellows in Iran. Right? Wrong!! In a WAR between Iran and Iraq, the Sunnis might team up with the Shias in Iraq because both are Arabs and Iranis are Persians. So another dividing factor comes. But the U.S. lead coalition forces relied totally on military superiority to topple Saddam, not the politics. Specifically, they did not begine by trying to woo one fighting group to their side. They rained bombs in the air with the country that had no air force. This suggested that they simply allow the Americans to do what they want. So we cannot know if when it comes to fighting the Americans, the shias would Join the Americans! Iraqis simply did not fight the Americans initially. Then afterwards they now fought a guerrilla war. This US power creats an illusion that the Shias (such as Kataib Hezbollah) behaved differently towards the Americans than they did towards the Iranis because this round 'they wanted Saddam gone'! In fact they would have fought Americans even while they were trying to topple Saddam, just like they fought the Iranis except that the US's air force was too powerful!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 19, 2022 at 6:38am

  The reason is that Shias beleive that the true leaders of Islamic world are descendants of Muhammad. This belief is far reaching than it appears. For instance it means that Shias will have more reference to their leaders since the 'must be descendant of Muhammad' stipulation imply 'something inherently different' in the leader, sort of 'closer to Muhammad' hence 'some sort of Muhammad's authority'. This of course allows Shia leaders to interpret the Quran more and so Shia is more adoptive to situations than Sunnis. In our era of religious tolerance, for instance, we must read the 'fight the un-beleivers' verse I posted in a different way than in ancient Arabia. Shia leaders can more easily guid their followers into what Muhammad actually meant. So Shias will not be 'very strict' in reading the Quran.
• 

  marker dragon January 18, 2022 at 7:52pm

  The hostage taker was MK Ultra victim. The whole incident was a CIA fear operation
  False Flag
• 

  judithfaye66 January 18, 2022 at 7:36pm

  Is it ok to hold a clergyman and his congregants hostage just because he feels like it and wants to speak to his sister who was convicted of terrible crimes?
• 

  judithfaye66 January 18, 2022 at 7:33pm

  Kudos to the MIT Educated Dr. :)
• 

  AlternateEarth January 18, 2022 at 1:39pm

  https://www.infowars.com/posts/mit-educated-doctor-ordered-to-under...

  

  MIT-Educated Doctor Ordered to Undergo Psych Evaluation After Prescribing Ivermectin

  Medical license suspended for posting COVID "misinformation."
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 18, 2022 at 7:07am

  

  ' As for whether Taliban is extremist or not, that is not the issue I am basically interested with. The point is that whatever entity Taliban is, it is supported by the pple of Afghanistan, at leats, when foreigners go there to fight! (Perhaps because as bad as one of them maybe, he is still someone's brother, dad, cousin, clan member or a member of ethnic group.).
  
  What I am saying is that it is the people of Afghanistan, and perharps to some extent Iran, Pakistan and other adjuscent countries who should be left to decide whether or not they want a secular state, a theocracy, a sharia law in Afghanistan. If others such as Germans etc donnot like Islamic Theocracy, they should migrate and leave in their good country in Germany rather than waiting to be 'persecuted' there and then cry for 'the world to take war to Afghanistan'. Also what I am saying is that beware of US and other Talibani enemies propaganda when reading things or watching media. They may exaggerate or give only half the story. That is all what I am saying. I am not saying 'Talibanis are good'.I don't think any group of fighters anywhere, including state armies are 'good'!
  
  Contrary to what US seems to believe, democracy is not just 'an opportunity to vote'. Pple are not voting machines. Faith in institutions is absolutely necessary for democracy. Institutions created by foreigners, including fighting groups, can never be trusted to oversee elections. We see now in US the 'democracy' means little because they have lost faith in their institutions. This means US should be doing something about its own democracy. It is not yet time to attempt to 'democratize' other countries! It should be first trying to creat trust in its own institutions!!
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 18, 2022 at 6:01am

  

  Ancient books should be interpreted like we should, the constitution: in such a way that it is faith full to the intentions of those who wrote it. It should not be 'linguistic' or 'accademic'. For instance, when inteprating 'freedom of media', we must understand that the writers of say the US constitution did not foresee a future where there is such an advanced technology as satellites and internet. The media messages was transmitted on horse backs, so almost anyone could create his own 'media'. 'Freedom of media' empowerment ordinary people, not tycoons! 'Freedom of media' was 'freedom to aquire true information'. It was certainly not 'freedom to be cheated with a tsunami of fake news and propaganda' from the elites and cabals!
• 

  Roaring Lovely January 18, 2022 at 5:49am

  We more or less cut and past a verse like this:
  
  "9:123
  ﭑ ‎ ﭒ ‎ ﭓ ‎ ﭔ ‎ ﭕ ‎ ﭖ ‎ ﭗ ‎ ﭘ ‎ ﭙ ‎ ﭚ ‎ ﭛ ‎ ﭜ ‎ ﭝ ‎ ﭞ ‎ ﭟ ‎ ﭠ ‎ ﭡ ‎ ﭢ‎
  O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you, and let them find severity in you. Know well that Allah is with the God-fearing"
  
  It is such verses in Quran that extremists, like ISIS etc uses. But they are refusing to understand Quran as, at best, a 'word of God' framed my a human in such a way as a human can understand. (of course for non Muslim, at worst it is just a human concoction). If God wished, he could talk to us directly face to face now, and tell us if anything, what he wants us to do. We don't need to read 6000 years old books to learn about a being supposedly here with us now!
  
  During the times when Quran was written, religions in Arabia was at constant hostility towards each other, and especially towards new religions. It was a worse form of what was taking place in Palestine etc. Consider Jesus surrounded by Pharisees, Saducees and all these other 'Jews' almost every time Jesus says anything contrary to Judaism, they pick up stones to stone him! It was this way in Arabia, but much worse! Even in Palestine, during Jesus's time, the 'non-beleiver' of Jesus almost meant 'the one against Jesus'. (Hence Jesus said 'he who is not with me is against me) It doesn't mean the same thing it means today! It was much worse in Arabia.
  
  So Muhammad was trying to tell his followers that Islam is not a pacifist religion. That the 'non-believers' are out to fight them to try to exterminate Islam, like they did to Christians was obvious and 'Muhammad' needed not to write it, nor could he foresee the distant future, which is our time of religious tolerance.