The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead withthe trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Advertisement

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.

But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call.

For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.

The campaign isn’t going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida’s official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.

Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don’t want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria
Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

Advertisement

That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.

In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia’s military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

Illustration

No sauce.

Like the Quran says.

Chapter (2) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow)

Sahih International: And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."

Pickthall: And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only.

Yusuf Ali: When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!"

Shakir: And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.

Muhammad Sarwar: When they are told not to commit corruption in the land, they reply, "We are only reformers".

Mohsin Khan: And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers."

Arberry: When it is said to them, 'Do not corruption in the land', they say, 'We are only ones that put things right.'

INTROVERT:
No sauce.

lol did u want to eat rice in d first place? lol just kiddn.. U made a mistake in d spelling source. U wrote sauce instead

Cutehector:
lol did u want to eat rice in d first place? lol just kiddn.. U made a mistake in d spelling source. U wrote sauce instead

Not a mistake CH....

Una no dey shame, infidels dash una weapons, instead of rejecting it, una begin use am kill una selves .I bet that even if no gun is given, una go use local knifes, sword, stones massacre each other.

If U.S attack on Iraq bad, wetin we go talk for Saudi Arabia bombing of yemen.

dolphinheart:
Una no dey shame, infidels dash una weapons, instead of rejecting it, una begin use am kill una selves .I bet that even if no gun is given, una go use local knifes, sword, stones massacre each other.

If U.S attack on Iraq bad, wetin we go talk for Saudi Arabia bombing of yemen.

Then your ancestors are the most shameless pigs ever. After all they did hunt and sell their people to the white men as slaves did they not? And you in your infinite stupidity brought up the issue of KSA and Yemen, please tell me who the Saudis are bombing. Pig!

KellamLeTorneau:


Then your ancestors are the most shameless pigs ever. After all they did hunt and sell their people to the white men as slaves did they not? And you in your infinite stupidity brought up the issue of KSA and Yemen, please tell me who the Saudis are bombing. Pig!

Haha! History is full of shameless people, good people and people who were lukeworm. Not all accepted, agreed or took part in the slave trade. Moreover and more importantly, they did not do their shameless acts for religious reasons.

There were white slaves made slaves by fellow white people. Arab slaves who where made slaves by fellow Arabs over flimsy excuse like a man feeling that he is not giving enough respect .


But I'm more concerned about the present system, the one I live in . The one I'm not sure if entering a bus with a woman in hijab will be the last thing ill do. The one I'm not sure if an argument between two adherents of the same religion but belonging to different sects will not bring out ak47 to settle their differences.

The middle east and its major religion has always been the devils violence testing workshop. it is a pity the U.S got involved in it , they should have left them to there killing spree, but their greed wunt allow them stay out of a religious war that had existed even before the founding of the U.S state.

SA is bombing yemen innocent civilians . Why ? Cus they belong to a different sect .

dolphinheart:


Haha! History is full of shameless people, good people and people who were lukeworm. Not all accepted, agreed or took part in the slave trade. Moreover and more importantly, they did not do their shameless acts for religious reasons.

There were white slaves made slaves by fellow white people. Arab slaves who where made slaves by fellow Arabs over flimsy excuse like a man feeling that he is not giving enough respect .


But I'm more concerned about the present system, the one I live in . The one I'm not sure if entering a bus with a woman in hijab will be the last thing ill do. The one I'm not sure if an argument between two adherents of the same religion but belonging to different sects will not bring out ak47 to settle their differences.

The middle east and its major religion has always been the devils violence testing workshop. it is a pity the U.S got involved in it , they should have left them to there killing spree, but their greed wunt allow them stay out of a religious war that had existed even before the founding of the U.S state.

SA is bombing yemen innocent civilians . Why ? Cus they belong to a different sect .

Well your post is full of ignorant claims I know an ignorant person like you can NEVER comprehend. But about KSA and Yemen, please can you bring proof of your claims that KSA is bombing civilians in Yemen because they are of a different sect. Please elaborate further.

KellamLeTorneau:


Well your post is full of ignorant claims I know an ignorant person like you can NEVER comprehend. But about KSA and Yemen, please can you bring proof of your claims that KSA is bombing civilians in Yemen because they are of a different sect. Please elaborate further.

Ignorant claim indeed! , well, you can say I'm ignorant because I dnt know that the Arabs never had Arab slaves or that the Europeans never had European or white slaves. If those facts are true, that there was no slave trade in the middle east, then I'm surely ignorant.

Ill elaborate with facts :
1. SA bombed yemen( a sovereign country)
2. SA bombings killed civilians and fighters.
3. SA bombing killed the houthi people.
4 SA bombings killed the houthi people who are mostly shia.
5. SA bombings did not kill yemenis that are sunni .
6. SA say they bombed cus they wanted to restore the former government (mainly sunni)and will not accept the houthi peoples goverment (mainly shia) cus they feel the houthi will be a proxy for the Iranians(shia superpower).

With those facts, its save to have the view that SA would not have bombed the houthis if they had been sunni trying to form a new goverment.
All the countries allied to this bombings are sunni governed countries.

SA supports sunni rebels in syria who try to overthrow a shia led government, but will not accept rebels in yemen who are overthrowing a sunni led government.

dolphinheart:


Ignorant claim indeed! , well, you can say I'm ignorant because I dnt know that the Arabs never had Arab slaves or that the Europeans never had European or white slaves. If those facts are true, that there was no slave trade in the middle east, then I'm surely ignorant.

Ill elaborate with facts :
1. SA bombed yemen( a sovereign country)
2. SA bombings killed civilians and fighters.
3. SA bombing killed the houthi people.
4 SA bombings killed the houthi people who are mostly shia.
5. SA bombings did not kill yemenis that are sunni .
6. SA say they bombed cus they wanted to restore the former government (mainly sunni)and will not accept the houthi peoples goverment (mainly shia) cus they feel the houthi will be a proxy for the Iranians(shia superpower).

With those facts, its save to have the view that SA would not have bombed the houthis if they had been sunni trying to form a new goverment.
All the countries allied to this bombings are sunni governed countries.

SA supports sunni rebels in syria who try to overthrow a shia led government, but will not accept rebels in yemen who are overthrowing a sunni led government.

You know nothing about middle eastern politics do you? Syria is a Sunni majority country but the Shias control the country and oppress the Sunnis, clearly the Shia rule is against the wishes of majority of the people, the Shias run a sort of dictatorship, a democrat like you should appreciate that the KSA is against such acts. Yemen also another Sunni majority country elected a Sunni president but Shia rebels overthrew him, going against the wish of democracy and the wish of the people. There did not go and knock on the door and fling him out, no! They shed the blood of innocents, such heinous crimes must not be allowed for sanity to be upheld in societies. There's no justification for bombing people but this is a close to a good one. As for Iran, do you see the Sunnis trying to impose a Sunni leader on them or other Shia countries like Azerbaijan? Think with your head mate, don't just speak out of the ignorance of hate.

KellamLeTorneau:



You know nothing about middle eastern politics do you? Syria is a Sunni majority country but the Shias control the country and oppress the Sunnis, clearly the Shia rule is against the wishes of majority of the people, the Shias run a sort of dictatorship, a democrat like you should appreciate that the KSA is against such acts. Yemen also another Sunni majority country elected a Sunni president but Shia rebels overthrew him, going against the wish of democracy and the wish of the people. There did not go and knock on the door and fling him out, no! They shed the blood of innocents, such heinous crimes must not be allowed for sanity to be upheld in societies. There's no justification for bombing people but this is a close to a good one. As for Iran, do you see the Sunnis trying to impose a Sunni leader on them or other Shia countries like Azerbaijan? Think with your head mate, don't just speak out of the ignorance of hate.

For many years the Sunnis imposed themselves on Iraq, a Shia majority country, so by your own logic you should have supported the US removal of Saddam Hussein in order to allow the Shia to rule Iraq.

You should also support the overthrow of the Bahrain government for the same reason (Sunni ruler, Shia majority)

KellamLeTorneau:



You know nothing about middle eastern politics do you? Syria is a Sunni majority country but the Shias control the country and oppress the Sunnis, clearly the Shia rule is against the wishes of majority of the people, the Shias run a sort of dictatorship, a democrat like you should appreciate that the KSA is against such acts. Yemen also another Sunni majority country elected a Sunni president but Shia rebels overthrew him, going against the wish of democracy and the wish of the people. There's no justification for bombing people but this is a good one. As for Iran, do you see the Sunnis trying to impose a Shia leader on them or other Shia countries like Azerbaijan? Think with your head mate, don't just speak out of the ignorance of hate.

Let's analyse ur post.

Syria is a majority sunni country(about 70%) and the shia control them and oppress them , thus SA supports the sunni in their fight against the shia.

Let's Take that SA policy to bahrain, another Muslim country. Bahrain is a predominantly shia country (between 60-70%) and its ruled by the sunnis. The shia in bahrain are oppressed before the Arab spring and up till now and at several times try to create an uprising to overthrow the sunni government. Pls tell me, why the SA has not intervened to support the shia here, at least they also claim oppression and they are in the majority. Can you see the conflict in SA policy? They interfere depending on which sect is ruling .

For several years, Saddam Hussein ( a minority sunni) got the support of SA in his rulership over the majority shia, abi no be so ?

Now to yemen , shia-sunni population is more or less equal, there is no clear majority .

The Syrian government is a democratically elected goverment, the sunnis and SA do not like the result, and thus the political wahala there escalated.
In yemen , the sunni leadership sought to change the constitution so that the sunni president can seek election for life, this was the start of its own political wahala. This result of these Wahala (shia rulership) was rejected by SA , hence the bombing in an attempt to restore sunni leadership.
The overthrown leadership in yemen is an interim govt and not a democratically elected govt like the Syrian govt.

Now let's go to democracy and oppression . SA does not practise democracy, how come dem dey fight over the democracy of another country, to the extent of bombing its citezens , the monarchy in SA came to power through violence Na.
On oppression . The shia in SA have been oppressed for a long time now, despite the fact that most of the countries wealth come from areas belonging to shia tribes. How can a country that oppresses its own minority be a champion for the oppressed in another country. These one tire me o.

Mate, the sunnis will not impose a shia government anywhere in the world, so ur question is faulty.

dolphinheart:


Let's analyse ur post.

Syria is a majority sunni country(about 70%) and the shia control them and oppress them , thus SA supports the sunni in their fight against the shia.

Let's Take that SA policy to bahrain, another Muslim country. Bahrain is a predominantly shia country (between 60-70%) and its ruled by the sunnis. The shia in bahrain are oppressed before the Arab spring and up till now and at several times try to create an uprising to overthrow the sunni government. Pls tell me, why the SA has not intervened to support the shia here, at least they also claim oppression and they are in the majority. Can you see the conflict in SA policy? They interfere depending on which sect is ruling .

For several years, Saddam Hussein ( a minority sunni) got the support of SA in his rulership over the majority shia, abi no be so ?

Now to yemen , shia-sunni population is more or less equal, there is no clear majority .

The Syrian government is a democratically elected goverment, the sunnis and SA do not like the result, and thus the political wahala there escalated.
In yemen , the sunni leadership sought to change the constitution so that the sunni president can seek election for life, this was the start of its own political wahala. This result of these Wahala (shia rulership) was rejected by SA , hence the bombing in an attempt to restore sunni leadership.
The overthrown leadership in yemen is an interim govt and not a democratically elected govt like the Syrian govt.

Now let's go to democracy and oppression . SA does not practise democracy, how come dem dey fight over the democracy of another country, to the extent of bombing its citezens , the monarchy in SA came to power through violence Na.
On oppression . The shia in SA have been oppressed for a long time now, despite the fact that most of the countries wealth come from areas belonging to shia tribes. How can a country that oppresses its own minority be a champion for the oppressed in another country. These one tire me o.

Mate, the sunnis will not impose a shia government anywhere in the world, so ur question is faulty.

The Saudis do not practice democracy but it favors them. There are elected officials but the Monarchs control the country, yes. It's not democracy but the Saudis are satisfied with the royal family, the country's I mentioned are not satisfied with their system of government.

Also your claims about Bahrain are flawed considering elections have been holding and the Shias look to take over the country soon. Do you know it was the Sunnis that actually strengthened the Shias in Bahrain? There's nothing like dictatorship or oppression there. Also, Sunnis all estimations prove that Sunnis make up the majority in Yemen, the Shias have accepted and lived with that fact. As to your claims about elections in Syria, let's be serious, you honestly think a person like Assad will win a free election by a landslide? By 88% to be more precise? Lola! Everyone knows that election was rigged, part of the oppression I mentioned earlier. And you expect the people to stand by this? I accept the KSA will always support Sunnis over Shias but the Shias are at fault in these scenarios you've pointed out.

dolphinheart:


Let's analyse ur post.

Syria is a majority sunni country(about 70%) and the shia control them and oppress them , thus SA supports the sunni in their fight against the shia.

Let's Take that SA policy to bahrain, another Muslim country. Bahrain is a predominantly shia country (between 60-70%) and its ruled by the sunnis. The shia in bahrain are oppressed before the Arab spring and up till now and at several times try to create an uprising to overthrow the sunni government. Pls tell me, why the SA has not intervened to support the shia here, at least they also claim oppression and they are in the majority. Can you see the conflict in SA policy? They interfere depending on which sect is ruling .

For several years, Saddam Hussein ( a minority sunni) got the support of SA in his rulership over the majority shia, abi no be so ?

Now to yemen , shia-sunni population is more or less equal, there is no clear majority .

The Syrian government is a democratically elected goverment, the sunnis and SA do not like the result, and thus the political wahala there escalated.
In yemen , the sunni leadership sought to change the constitution so that the sunni president can seek election for life, this was the start of its own political wahala. This result of these Wahala (shia rulership) was rejected by SA , hence the bombing in an attempt to restore sunni leadership.
The overthrown leadership in yemen is an interim govt and not a democratically elected govt like the Syrian govt.

Now let's go to democracy and oppression . SA does not practise democracy, how come dem dey fight over the democracy of another country, to the extent of bombing its citezens , the monarchy in SA came to power through violence Na.
On oppression . The shia in SA have been oppressed for a long time now, despite the fact that most of the countries wealth come from areas belonging to shia tribes. How can a country that oppresses its own minority be a champion for the oppressed in another country. These one tire me o.

Mate, the sunnis will not impose a shia government anywhere in the world, so ur question is faulty.

The Saudis do not practice democracy but it favors them. There are elected officials but the Monarchs control the country, yes. It's not democracy but the Saudis are satisfied with the royal family, the countries I mentioned are not satisfied with their system of government.

Also your claims about Bahrain are flawed considering elections have been holding and the Shias look to take over the country soon. Do you know it was the Sunnis that actually strengthened the Shias in Bahrain? There's nothing like dictatorship or oppression there. Also, Sunnis all estimations prove that Sunnis make up the majority in Yemen, the Shias have accepted and lived with that fact. As to your claims about elections in Syria, let's be serious, you honestly think a person like Assad will win a free election by a landslide? By 88% to be more precise? Lola! Everyone knows that election was rigged, part of the oppression I mentioned earlier. And you expect the people to stand by this? I accept the KSA will always support Sunnis over Shias but the Shias are at fault in these scenarios you've pointed out.

dolphinheart:


Let's analyse ur post.

Syria is a majority sunni country(about 70%) and the shia control them and oppress them , thus SA supports the sunni in their fight against the shia.

Let's Take that SA policy to bahrain, another Muslim country. Bahrain is a predominantly shia country (between 60-70%) and its ruled by the sunnis. The shia in bahrain are oppressed before the Arab spring and up till now and at several times try to create an uprising to overthrow the sunni government. Pls tell me, why the SA has not intervened to support the shia here, at least they also claim oppression and they are in the majority. Can you see the conflict in SA policy? They interfere depending on which sect is ruling .

For several years, Saddam Hussein ( a minority sunni) got the support of SA in his rulership over the majority shia, abi no be so ?

Now to yemen , shia-sunni population is more or less equal, there is no clear majority .

The Syrian government is a democratically elected goverment, the sunnis and SA do not like the result, and thus the political wahala there escalated.
In yemen , the sunni leadership sought to change the constitution so that the sunni president can seek election for life, this was the start of its own political wahala. This result of these Wahala (shia rulership) was rejected by SA , hence the bombing in an attempt to restore sunni leadership.
The overthrown leadership in yemen is an interim govt and not a democratically elected govt like the Syrian govt.

Now let's go to democracy and oppression . SA does not practise democracy, how come dem dey fight over the democracy of another country, to the extent of bombing its citezens , the monarchy in SA came to power through violence Na.
On oppression . The shia in SA have been oppressed for a long time now, despite the fact that most of the countries wealth come from areas belonging to shia tribes. How can a country that oppresses its own minority be a champion for the oppressed in another country. These one tire me o.

Mate, the sunnis will not impose a shia government anywhere in the world, so ur question is faulty.

The Saudis do not practice democracy but it favors them. There are elected officials but the Monarchs control the country, yes. It's not democracy but the Saudis are satisfied with the royal family, the countries I mentioned are not satisfied with their system of government.

Also your claims about Bahrain are flawed considering elections have been holding and the Shias look to take over the country soon. Do you know it was the Sunnis that actually strengthened the Shias in Bahrain? There's nothing like dictatorship or oppression there. Also, Sunnis all estimations prove that Sunnis make up the majority in Yemen, the Shias have accepted and lived with that fact. As to your claims about elections in Syria, let's be serious, you honestly think a person like Assad will win a free election by a landslide? By 88% to be more precise? Lol! Everyone knows that election was rigged, part of the oppression I mentioned earlier. And you expect the people to stand by this? I accept the KSA will always support Sunnis over Shias but the Shias are at fault in these scenarios you've pointed out.

KellamLeTorneau:


The Saudis do not practice democracy but it favors them. There are elected officials but the Monarchs control the country, yes. It's not democracy but the Saudis are satisfied with the royal family, the countries I mentioned are not satisfied with their system of government.

Also your claims about Bahrain are flawed considering elections have been holding and the Shias look to take over the country soon. Do you know it was the Sunnis that actually strengthened the Shias in Bahrain? There's nothing like dictatorship or oppression there. Also, Sunnis all estimations prove that Sunnis make up the majority in Yemen, the Shias have accepted and lived with that fact. As to your claims about elections in Syria, let's be serious, you honestly think a person like Assad will win a free election by a landslide? By 88% to be more precise? Lol! Everyone knows that election was rigged, part of the oppression I mentioned earlier. And you expect the people to stand by this? I accept the KSA will always support Sunnis over Shias but the Shias are at fault in these scenarios you've pointed out.

I like ur sweetalk, you did not make mention of how the shia are treated in SA, and that the monarchs got there power through violence. Its ok .

I dnt understand what you mean by the " Saudis do not practise democracy but it favours them " pls elaborate.

The Saudis are satisfied with the monarchy yet there is increase in the number of political prisoners . The Islamic human rights commission claim there are about 30,000 political prisoners without most being detained with charge or trial.
They are satisfied with the monarchy yet a part of its citezens are denied opportunity to work in certain aspects of the civil service such as in the military, education and petroleum.
Mate, I beg to differ .

The monarchy you claimed people are satisfied with kept on dethroning, killing, murdering each other up to the mordern time of 1975. Bet the murdering stopped due to the presence and influence of stronger infidels like the U.S in saudi territory and politics. I bet, if not for the strong military presence of the infidels in SA and in the region , the terrorist would probably be fighting for control of SA and mecca now like they did in times past when the black stone was taking from from region to region due to fighting among people of the same religion.

Most countries have issues between there citezens and the government and sometimes need to undergo a violent restructuring. But in the case of syria and yemen, SA is acting more like a catalyst to the violent process due to its interests , and that is making and keeping sunni rule at all cost .

Like you said The citezens of syria, yemen and bahrain are not satisfied with there government . Yet the SA intervened in two countries with the promotion of violence and did not intervene with violence in the third country, why? Cus the third country is sunni led.

If there is nothing like oppression in bahrain, why did the Arab spring take root there, why are there present reforms(used to difuse the growing riots) going on there. As you said, these present reforms has enabled the shia grow politicaly, but that they will take over, I dnt think so cus the sunni and SA wunt allow it.

If you think sunni are the majority in yemen, tell us the percentage and source for ur info.

In the case of syria, I like SA approach in solving the problem of election rigging .
They solve it by cooperating with infidels to create the largest refugee crises in the world , largest child death rate, hunger, humanitarian crises just because they felt one man rigged the elections.

dolphinheart:


I like ur sweetalk, you did not make mention of how the shia are treated in SA, and that the monarchs got there power through violence. Its ok .

I dnt understand what you mean by the " Saudis do not practise democracy but it favours them " pls elaborate.

The Saudis are satisfied with the monarchy yet there is increase in the number of political prisoners . The Islamic human rights commission claim there are about 30,000 political prisoners without most being detained with charge or trial.
They are satisfied with the monarchy yet a part of its citezens are denied opportunity to work in certain aspects of the civil service such as in the military, education and petroleum.
Mate, I beg to differ .

The monarchy you claimed people are satisfied with kept on dethroning, killing, murdering each other up to the mordern time of 1975. Bet the murdering stopped due to the presence and influence of stronger infidels like the U.S in saudi territory and politics. I bet, if not for the strong military presence of the infidels in SA and in the region , the terrorist would probably be fighting for control of SA and mecca now like they did in times past when the black stone was taking from from region to region due to fighting among people of the same religion.

Most countries have issues between there citezens and the government and sometimes need to undergo a violent restructuring. But in the case of syria and yemen, SA is acting more like a catalyst to the violent process due to its interests , and that is making and keeping sunni rule at all cost .

Like you said The citezens of syria, yemen and bahrain are not satisfied with there government . Yet the SA intervened in two countries with the promotion of violence and did not intervene with violence in the third country, why? Cus the third country is sunni led.

If there is nothing like oppression in bahrain, why did the Arab spring take root there, why are there present reforms(used to difuse the growing riots) going on there. As you said, these present reforms has enabled the shia grow politicaly, but that they will take over, I dnt think so cus the sunni and SA wunt allow it.

If you think sunni are the majority in yemen, tell us the percentage and source for ur info.

In the case of syria, I like SA approach in solving the problem of election rigging .
They solve it by cooperating with infidels to create the largest refugee crises in the world , largest child death rate, hunger, humanitarian crises just because they felt one man rigged the elections.

And how are the Shias treated in SA?

They do not practice democracy but the majority of their citizens are happy with their rule.

If the consensus agreement is the majority are happy with their rule, the minority against it are?

I like how you said "a part" .

And do you think if the people of Bahrain decide to change their rulers the Saudis can stop them? Please...

So far every estimate I've checked from pew research to Wikipedia to articles on bbc and cnn, they all seem to agree that the Sunnis make up the highest population. I don't even know where you got that funny idea that from. BTW, the Shias aren't actually muslims, but let's ignore that fact for now.

And finally, it seems you fail to understand that freedom from persecution is something that must be sort. Whatever it takes.

KellamLeTorneau:


And how are the Shias treated in SA?

They do not practice democracy but the majority of their citizens are happy with their rule.

If the consensus agreement is the majority are happy with their rule, the minority against it are?

I like how you said "a part" .

And do you think if the people of Bahrain decide to change their rulers the Saudis can stop them? Please...

So far every estimate I've checked from pew research to Wikipedia to articles on bbc and cnn, they all seem to agree that the Sunnis make up the highest population. I don't even know where you got that funny idea that from. BTW, the Shias aren't actually muslims, but let's ignore that fact for now.

And finally, it seems you fail to understand that freedom from persecution is something that must be sort. Whatever it takes.

Do I need to tell you how shias are being treated in SA? Ill tell you one. Shias in SA are being persecuted in the education system, they are not allowed to be teachers.

You say the majority of citezens are happy with their rule, but they are presently making reforms to satisfy the citezens .

Yes, historical and present day facts shows that SA will try and prevent the shias from taking rulership in bahrain. Unless the infidels stop them from trying.

You checked the estimates ,pls tell us the population in percentage of shias and sunni in bahrain and yemen .

What fact proves the shia not to be a Muslim sect . Pls let's see ur fact. What makes the sunni a Muslim that the shia dnt do or accept.

Good to hear you say freedom from persecution must be sort at all cost. So dnt blame the infidels for helping the oppressed seek freedom in syria and other Muslim lands.

dolphinheart:
Una no dey shame, infidels dash una weapons, instead of rejecting it, una begin use am kill una selves .I bet that even if no gun is given, una go use local knifes, sword, stones massacre each other.

If U.S attack on Iraq bad, wetin we go talk for Saudi Arabia bombing of yemen.

thank u.

dolphinheart:


Do I need to tell you how shias are being treated in SA? Ill tell you one. Shias in SA are being persecuted in the education system, they are not allowed to be teachers.

If you know without a doubt that 1+1=2 will you allow a teacher to teach your children otherwise?


Exactly, making reforms satisfy the citizens. Which means the citizens should be happy and they are until you can prove other wise.

You say the majority of citezens are happy with their rule, but they are presently making reforms to satisfy the citezens

.

Yes, historical and present day facts shows that SA will try and prevent the shias from taking rulership in bahrain. Unless the infidels stop them from trying.

And your proof is? The thing is they know they can't even if they try,

You checked the estimates ,pls tell us the population in percentage of shias and sunni in bahrain and yemen .

According to Wikipedia, I'll try to get a more reliable source later, Yemenis are divided into two principal Islamic religious groups: 50-55% Sunni and 42%-47%Shia.

The debate about sunni Shia is a long one even amongst muslims, I would expect you to understand. But the basic thing that makes muslims unique is the way we offer our prayer, Sunnis and Shias don't pray the same way, and to a Sunni like myself, that is enough to dent their faith. That's putting their innovations and mindless hatred aside.

What fact proves the shia not to be a Muslim sect . Pls let's see ur fact. What makes the sunni a Muslim that the shia dnt do or accept.

Good to hear you say freedom from persecution must be sort at all cost. So dnt blame the infidels for helping the oppressed seek freedom in syria and other Muslim lands.

No, like you mentioned earlier,the infidels are selfish and do what they do for their own gain, like in the case of Iraq, do you really think it was about terror? Who orchestrated 911? Who gave rise to Al Qaeda? It's mind rape, mate.

KellamLeTorneau:


If you know without a doubt that 1+1=2 will you allow a teacher to teach your children otherwise?


Exactly, making reforms satisfy the citizens. Which means the citizens should be happy and they are until you can prove other wise.
.



And your proof is? The thing is they know they can't even if they try,


According to Wikipedia, I'll try to get a more reliable source later, Yemenis are divided into two principal Islamic religious groups: 50-55% Sunni and 42%-47%Shia.

The debate about sunni Shia is a long one even amongst muslims, I would expect you to understand. But the basic thing that makes muslims unique is the way we offer our prayer, Sunnis and Shias don't pray the same way, and to a Sunni like myself, that is enough to dent their faith. That's putting their innovations and mindless hatred aside.




No, like you mentioned earlier,the infidels are selfish and do what they do for their own gain, like in the case of Iraq, do you really think it was about terror? Who orchestrated 911? Who gave rise to Al Qaeda? It's mind rape, mate.

Interesting!!,what a world those saudis live in, a sect is in majority, the sect believe in a particular knowledge without doubt . because this sect believes there knowledge wholeheartedly , they stopped others from expressing and teaching there knowledge. Verry nice way to do things! Others cannot teach their knowledge (which they also know without doubt) cus you plenty pass them. What an irony! The most interesting part is they are not allowed to teach at all. Yet they are counted as citezens of that country but are treated as second class citezens cus of their religious beliefs.



If I'm to send my child to school based on my religious knowledge, ill send that child to a school were such knowledge are thaught , but I wunt stop others from teaching their own knowledge to their own children.




Sunni discriminate against shias working in the oil company and military , is that due to knowledge too?!!!



Making reforms satisfies the citezens who dnt like ur kind of goverment. You satisfy people who are initially not satified with your rulership. If people where happy, they wunt demand for reforms. It was the protest by the people that led to the reforms and the reforms will continue until things change for the better.



Now let's look at facts and why I said SA will try to keep sunnis in authority in bahrain .

The uprising, protest by the majority against the government due to oppression started at the same time in syria and bahrain. In syria the SA authorities sent money and weapons and support to the people who wanted to change the government. But in bahrain , the reverse is the case, they and fellow sunni ruled enclaves sent troops with weapons to protect the sunni goverment the majority of shias are trying to replace. That is doubble standard mate!
And as at last year, the sunni troops where still there.
Bahrains monarchy came from quatar and got power through the help of tribes in the Penisulla(present day SA), dnt you think SA will continue to help them maintain that rulership.




On yemeni population, do you think that the slight majority of sunni in yemen can give them total control in making decisions ? Absolutely no. Proof? The present rulers in the capital are shia.



So you are against shia muslims cus of how they pray, pls tell us How ur prophet told you to pray in ur holy book and let's see if the shia dnt follow it .



On Iraq. Before I answer ur questions, pls tell me
, is SA not in support of infidels action in Iraq?, providing logistic support in their attack on Iraq?
The infidels are selfish, but SA , Iran and other Muslim countries are more selfish .

SA gave millions of dollars to Iraq to help them in their fight against Iran , why will a muslim country help another Muslim country to fight another Muslim country? Cus they want sunni rulership .

In syria, SA is supporting one Muslim sect, while Iran is supporting another sect.why? Cus of need for selfish sectarian rulership. This selfish acts has led to the death of thousands of Muslim children and women. Two Muslim nations cannot sit on a table and workout peace between themselves.

dolphinheart:


Interesting!!,what a world those saudis live in, a sect is in majority, the sect believe in a particular knowledge without doubt . because this sect believes there knowledge wholeheartedly , they stopped others from expressing and teaching there knowledge. Verry nice way to do things! Others cannot teach their knowledge (which they also know without doubt) cus you plenty pass them[b][/b]. What an irony! The most interesting part is they are not allowed to teach at all. Yet they are counted as citezens of that country but are treated as second class citezens cus of their religious beliefs.

Why yes of course. Why will i allow someone to go about poisoning my child's mind. why will I allow my children to be poisoned which Jewish conspiracies. And who told you there aren't Shia teachers at all? There are even Shia professors! But do you know that the taqiya (blatant lying to get to an end) you accuse muslims of practicing, it is actually the Shias that practice it and not actually muslims. I refuse to apologize that for us muslims religion is a lifestyle, it's not having Gods name on your lips but the idea doesn't go beyond that.


Shias are allowed to be teachers but not religious teachers. They are also free to teach THEIR children whatever they please.

If I'm to send my child to school based on my religious knowledge, ill send that child to a school were such knowledge are thaught , but I wunt stop others from teaching their own knowledge to their own children.

Excellent! Seeing what the Shias are doing in Syria it's absolutely justified. Give them room and they will stab you in your sleep.

Sunni discriminate against shias working in the oil company and military , is that due to knowledge too?!!!

And if reforms are made after they are demanded, does that not signify a fair government? If what the people demand is given to them should they not be happy? I'm sure if the Saudis as a whole rise up to say they want a democratic system to rule them and not the royal system, even though the royal family might resist in the end there is nothing they can do. So far no such incidents seem probable to occur.

Making reforms satisfies the citezens who dnt like ur kind of goverment. You satisfy people who are initially not satified with your rulership. If people where happy, they wunt demand for reforms. It was the protest by the people that led to the reforms and the reforms will continue until things change for the better.

Compare what happened in Bahrain where the Shias indirectly control the government now to what is happening in Syria where the leader rigged the election and continues to use chemical weapons against children.

Now let's look at facts and why I said SA will try to keep sunnis in authority in bahrain .

The uprising, protest by the majority against the government due to oppression started at the same time in syria and bahrain. In syria the SA authorities sent money and weapons and support to the people who wanted to change the government. But in bahrain , the reverse is the case, they and fellow sunni ruled enclaves sent troops with weapons to protect the sunni goverment the majority of shias are trying to replace. That is doubble standard mate!
And as at last year, the sunni troops where still there.
Bahrains monarchy came from quatar and got power through the help of tribes in the Penisulla(present day SA), dnt you think SA will continue to help them maintain that rulership.

That just shows they are densely populated in the capital, not the whole of Yemen.

On yemeni population, do you think that the slight majority of sunni in yemen can give them total control in making decisions ? Absolutely no. Proof? The present rulers in the capital are shia.

You asked for a difference or why they aren't muslims, I gave you one. But it's their whole ideology I'm against, and if you don't know or understand how crucial the difference in the way we offer our prayers are I don't think you're capable of understanding now.

So you are against shia muslims cus of how they pray, pls tell us How ur prophet told you to pray in ur holy book and let's see if the shia dnt follow it .

Dude, if you're talking about Isis then you're talking about the monster their greed created, and it's about stopping it now and not playing the blame game.

On Iraq. Before I answer ur questions, pls tell me
, is SA not in support of infidels action in Iraq?, providing logistic support in their attack on Iraq?
The infidels are selfish, but SA , Iran and other Muslim countries are more selfish .

You're being a bit ignorant here, both Iran and Iraq are Shia countries.

SA gave millions of dollars to Iraq to help them in their fight against Iran , why will a muslim country help another Muslim country to fight another Muslim country? Cus they want sunni rulership .

In syria, SA is supporting one Muslim sect, while Iran is supporting another sect.why? Cus of need for selfish sectarian rulership. This selfish acts has led to the death of thousands of Muslim children and women. Two Muslim nations cannot sit on a table and workout peace between themselves.

Of course, KSA supports the people and the majority while Iran supports the oppression of the people... Simple.

Why yes of course. Why will i allow someone to go about poisoning my child's mind. why will I allow my children to be poisoned which Jewish conspiracies. And who told you there aren't Shia teachers at all? There are even Shia professors! But do you know that the taqiya (blatant lying to get to an end) you accuse muslims of practicing, it is actually the Shias that practice it and not actually muslims. I refuse to apologize that for us muslims religion is a lifestyle, it's not having Gods name on your lips but the idea doesn't go beyond that.


Shias are allowed to be teachers but not religious teachers. They are also free to teach THEIR children whatever they please.


Excellent! Seeing what the Shias are doing in Syria it's absolutely justified. Give them room and they will stab you in your sleep.



And if reforms are made after they are demanded, does that not signify a fair government? If what the people demand is given to them should they not be happy? I'm sure if the Saudis as a whole rise up to say they want a democratic system to rule them and not the royal system, even though the royal family might resist in the end there is nothing they can do. So far no such incidents seem probable to occur.



Compare what happened in Bahrain where the Shias indirectly control the government now to what is happening in Syria where the leader rigged the election and continues to use chemical weapons against children.



That just shows they are densely populated in the capital, not the whole of Yemen.



You asked for a difference or why they aren't muslims, I gave you one. But it's their whole ideology I'm against, and if you don't know or understand how crucial the difference in the way we offer our prayers are I don't think you're capable of understanding now.



Dude, if you're talking about Isis then you're talking about the monster their greed created, and it's about stopping it now and not playing the blame game.


You're being a bit ignorant here, both Iran and Iraq are Shia countries.




Of course, KSA supports the people and the majority while Iran supports the oppression of the people... Simple.

We can go on an on discussing the issues in the middle east without coming to a conclusion .

But my own points are based on facts. But first , I must say the following . Blaming non muslims for the problems in the middle east is wrong cus the middle east has been volatile, dangerous, violent killing ground long before the infidel influence came. It was even made worse by religious division.

Now to facts.

It is a fact that SA support the rebels in syria who are mainly sunni as against a shia led government.

It is a fact that SA support the ruling government in bahrain who are sunni as against the shia prostesters.

It is a fact that SA took these too aforementioned decisions at the time when tje crises has not escalated to these level.

It is a fact that SA supported Saddam , a sunni leader in his war against Iran , a shia government.

It is a fact that it is SA and other sunni monarchy that invited and supported the infidels in fighting Iraq and should take part of the blame when the infidels decided to attack again and also the later crises in Iraq.

It is a fact that the present peace in the peaceful areas in the middle east is being maintained by these infidels, and whole region will go up in flames if they ever leave.

It is a fact that , in syria , iraq and yemen now , muslims are killing muslims with the help of muslims who got and bought their weapons from infidels who they claim they hate.

My personal beliefs remains the same : 1.if the sects there have been peaceful with each other, the infidels guns would have been of no use.
2. The infidels should not have involved themselves in a religious war that has been on for centuries. they should have left them to continue massacreing each other untill one sect achieve total dominion.