Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

I'll say! I am always surprised at the amount of time, footage, and expense, that is devoted to Egypt's pharaonic age, but it is an information wasteland when it comes to discussing history's largest empire. I remember reading somewhere the Persian Empire (don't remember which ruler) at one point encompassed over 5 million square kilometers and nearly 50% the world's population, and was considered the world's first centralized state.

I have no doubt that most casual Western observers are not aware of this.

And foreign powers changing others' names has proven problematic many times around the globe.

I understand there is still a very small population of Zoroastrians living in Iran. As they are not People of the Book, therefore not dhimmis under protection, what is their current status?

Okay, enough for now. I'll have to pick this up tomorrow.

 

Take your time. I will respond to some of the issues you raise but the true essence of Shia Islam in general, and the Iranian in resistance in particular, will not be understood focusing on dogma or any 'doctrines'. The very essence of Shia theology and philosophy is to reject dogma, seeing truth (epistemology) as basically subjective (time, place, and environment) dependent. Indeed, the political differences between Shia and Sunni aside, the main theological difference is between the concept of "Ijtihad" (using reason to derive principles and doctrine) versus the concept of "taghlid" (copying the beliefs and conclusions about divine law from the past). The fact that Shia jurisprudence itself did not keep up with the times either, and the shia "ulama" (scholars) were not longer as scholarly as they used to be, isn't because of the philosophical limitations of their theoretical upbringing. It is mainly because the center for the most important ideas affecting human knowledge past from the Islamic world to the West (especially after the 17th century) and was now expressed in languages that they didn't understand, making them no longer the 'scholars' they used to be. And a good bit of "taghlid" (copying past dogma) came to overtake the practice of Ijtihad (using the human faculties, including reasoning, to derive truths based on the latest knowledge) instead.

The doctrine was developed in response to particular circumstances, where the Shia were persecuted (and killed) for admitting to being Shia. It allowed them to hide their true faith and avoid being killed. It would be analogous to faulting Jews who would hide being Jewish during the 1930s in Nazi Germany. It is a doctrine justified based on necessity and not a general license to engage in dissemination.

The important thing about Shia philosophy isn't particular doctrines, but the fact that the philosophy at its core is both practical and spiritual. Practical in the sense that it is not dogmatic, allows for evolutionary changes based on circumstances. Spiritual in that, while imbued with a large dose of philosophical skepticism and agnostic doubt, it ultimately does believe and preach others to believe in a higher existence. Something above and beyond the material, temporal, world.

Always? I am not sure about anything that is 'always' the case

However, while there are opposing Shia schools of thought which disdained political activism in the absence of the Hidden Imam (you have to remember that the last Shia Imam went into Occultation in 873), I would agree that the true essence -- and logical conclusion -- of Shia (and, before that, Iranian ideology) is to seek a government order based on a concept similar to the one developed by Ayatollah Khomeini in his doctrine of Velayat Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). This concept has similarities to the ancient, pre Islamic, Iranian ideology about a "Just King" being the only legitimate, divinely ordained, king. And is similar in many respects to the "Philosopher King" in Plato's Republic.

As such, the essence of that ideology (as evolved in Iran) combines pre Islamic Iranian beliefs with post Islamic influences, to seek an order where: a) the polity is guided by 'properly trained scholars' (called Ayatollahs), who may differ between themselves on issues and have 'academic freedom' to so differ, with people being able to choose any one of them as their 'source of emulation'. This, in contrast to people being guided either by those beholden to 'material interests' or otherwise by "snake oil salesmen" without proper philosophical and juridical training who may take scripture and read what (in Avicenna's view was meant only as fables for the masses) and believe they are the true expression of God's will. Where the polity is led by a 'philosopher king" (Vali Faqih or Supreme Leader) chosen by an elected "Assembly of Experts", not based on heredity nor based on pure material interests, but on his fidelity and loyalty to both scholarship and the essence of seeking justice and independence for Iran.

No. First, as I mentioned, that the last "Shia Imam" went into Occultation in 873. Hence, the political theories developed now are mainly 'stop gap' measures for each polity and don't need to (and don't have) general applicability for all necessarily. While Iranian ideology does favor resistance to Western domination throughout the region, it does not require anyone else adopting Iran's particular model of government. Second, as you might know, Syria is in fact an ally of Iran and we have decent relations with Turkey as well. I don't think "Jordan" is much in people's minds in Iran! For Iran, those countries regarded as being most 'under the thumb of US/Israeli" hegemony, are the ones that would be the toughest to deal with! Ideologically, Iran sees Wahhabi Arabia as an enemy. And it does view Israel as an enemy in different ways, first and foremost, however, because it sees Israel as a western colonial outpost.

The political attitude of Iran will depend on political factors and issues of expediency. But "KSA" represents what is anathema to Iran on every level. Its Wahhabi ideology is the one that is most virulently anti-Iran/anti-Shia (in fact, developed to set aside the corrupt Persian influences on "true Islam" and to return Islam to its "pristine", Arab Bedouin origins). Its dependency on the US is an example of exactly what Iranian ideology stands against. And KSA is home of the 'real Arabs": the people who came out of the deserts of "hejaz" to conquer the Persian empire (and most of the Byzantine empire), converting many people of the "East" to not just "Islam" but to become "Arabs" as well. While these "new Arabs" were not Iranian and were of other backgrounds, many of them were part of the "Aramaic" world which was allied to Iran as part of the East against the West. Under the Abbasids, and afterwards under every other ruler in the region, the Middle East returned to its "Eastern" origins and away from the strictly Arab origin of Islam. But KSA is home of the real Arabs and a culture and world view that was alien to Iran and is still alien to Iran today.

The "quietist political" label actually refers to the school of thought in Shia Islam that argued against clerical involvement in politics. A school of thought rejected by Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution. It is really not the issue in Syria. The overriding influence on Iranian policy is its stance against US/Israeli hegemony and its alliance with those who are similarly working on that front. They can be of any religious or non-religious persuasion. What is important is whether they help or hurt the 'axis of resistance'.

 

In reading back - this "all should have been going well and moving on to final discussions on the two state solution which was already
way past its time limit. Israel then broke the cease fire killing some members of Hamas knowing this would provoke Hamas into
replying..."
I have no idea why Hamas operatives were killed. The usual route is the tit for tat one - Hamas does something and Israel responds.
It's more than likely, on the basis of probability, that it was Hamas who provoked the Israelis, and then cut off discussion.
You see, it's in their Hamas Charter - the destruction of Israel. It's not about Six Day War Borders (which the Arabs also rejected)
IT'S ABOUT LAND - ALL OF IT.

 

Yes, but that was only the first of many Persian empires. For almost a thousand years before Islam (under the Achaemenids, the Parthians and the Sassanid empires), IRAN was one of the major if not dominant powers of its times. And for several centuries after the 16th century, IRAN again had empires which held away across much of its old dominion (even if that dominion no longer represented the valued real estate it once did before the center of international affairs moved west).

That 'longevity' of Iranian rule by itself had profound influences that casual westerners aren't aware of. Beyond that, the influence of Iran on all the world's major monotheistic religions is undeniable. But there is a lot more to it which I will expand on in due course.

There are Zoroastrians living in Iran. They are considered 'people of the book' and are protected in practicing their religion and have a representative in the Iranian parliament.

 

Means only the Arabs got more countries in UN voting and much more political power.

OFC it was and at the same time the Jewish one was recognized at 181 voting,
The Arab civilians were given a country with pop exchange with Jewish one or be part of Israel - Israeli Arabs chose to be part of it.
The Jews only won an ethic war the aggressive Arabs started, it was the Arab intention to ethnic cleanse the Jews.

Instead of being cleansed themselves

Lies, your own source claims it was only propaganda and in fact out of 65,000 Arabs only 300 died in battle (battle, not genocide), 4,000 remained in Haifa and the rest fled.
It's you that stuck in Arab propaganda or just have severe difficulties in reading your own sources...

 

No and I debated you on that subject before, there were months before FSA and before Assad called in Iran and Lebanon where his army bombed with tanks the first resisting towns, Homes and that other I forgot...., it took time till the Syrian opposition basically became all Jihadi, the US armed ppl who later turned Jihadi I do agree with that, not by intent and they were not proxies.

 

You are completely wrong - and because we debated this subject previously - you should know better.

The radical Islamist's took over the protest movement's prior to armed insurrection starting - telling Christians to either join or leave the country - going around terrorizing and killing Christians.

The Defense Intelligence agency told the Obama Administration that the insurgency was dominated by radical Islamist's in early 2012 shortly after the beginning of armed conflict.. a conflict which was not a civil war - but an "armed insurgency".

Your claim that we only armed people that later turned Jihadi - is completely false nonsense on steroids - demonstrably false gibberish that flies on the face of historical fact - as well as logic and reason.

I realize that what you are saying is a commonly held "necessary illusion" - and you are regurgitating the state sponsored propaganda narrative - but - that does not make that narrative true.

 

Bull. The main point is religious connection. And 2nd is the guild card being played of the holocaust.

 

They do.

They all rewrote them from the same Sumerian mythology. Abraham, as the story goes, came from Ur. A Sumerian city.

 

The point is the Jew religion justifies genocide to thieve the land of Israel. And you're just deflecting.

 

Everybody knows they have no veto power in there, and the Christian countries outvote the Arab countries by a lot. That says plenty about that Israel is the most condemned nation on the planet.

Nobody asked the Arabs who were living in the Mandatory of Palestine about what country they wanted to be in. Hence THEIR RIGHT of self determination got trashed. Other countries simply determined that they must live in a country meant for millions of immigrants who were going to govern over them by rule of majority. And it seems you got absolutely no clue what self determination means.

The Arab civilian population was not about to ethnically cleanse the Jews. Them are just zionistic lies.

That the Jews were ordered to kill all males, was an order, and a historic fact. That the Jews demanded that all women and children had to leave, is a historic fact. That the Jews systematically destroyed all the Arab houses, is a historic fact. The only propaganda there is, is Jewish propaganda.

 

I'm deflecting nothing.

I said that the God of the Jews is claimed to be the same God of both the Christians and the Muslims. That's a fact, not a deflection.

Based on the tone of your post, I believe that your image of what a god should be does not match the God of the Abrahamic religions. That is my opinion.

And you have moved the goalposts... From Canaan to modern Israel.

In having done so, have you not opened a discussion of how Islam is using the same God to "thieve the land" of modern Israel?

I can agree with you that Israel went to Canaan and took that land on behalf of their God/religion... I cannot say that the same is true for 1948 or 2020.

 

About the thread title, GOOD!

 

Itij I have
read about, taghlid I had not heard before. That's a crucial and astounding difference in anyone's approach to law or culture.

grinding progress to a 7th century halt. (My words)

Ah! Hope for Iran yet

The Enlightenment, Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's has made state churches/theocracy anathema to the West.

To live with the boot of the state (read institutions: law, designated religious leaders, and police, etc) dictating which God you must follow, and how you must worship is a violation of each human's personhood.

Religiously, it begs so many questions: can God not read the hearts of men? Is God so impotent that he requires human minions to enforce on bodies what he has not provoked in hearts?

Sorry, I digress.

I pulled these three only because they are not lead by Islamic scholars.

Aren't they? To everyone?
Even to themselves!

For 30 years I've said the princes dance on the head of a pin. Frankenstein created it's own monster and eventually it will swallow up even the Royals.

do you envision a western military installation there?

I do not see the hallmarks of a colonial action in Israel. Hallmarks such as taxing the indigenous people or taking raw goods or slaves to enrich an overseas colonizer.

I assume you will say, in this case, isreal is colony and colonizer one. And I will remind you that Israel came to be in the age old way of war, and the spoils thereof. it has been legitimized by a council of the world's Nations. Taxing one's own citizens, using one's own resources, is not nefarious it is natural.

Use of the word colonial, it would seem, is hyperbolic; heat-seeking, in fact. Can we set it aside for the moment?

'...view Israel as an enemy in different ways, first and foremost, however, because it sees Israel as a western...outpost.'

Tell me about this.

I picked up the "KSA" from a Palestinian woman who posted on another board. In truth, it distinguishes Saudi Arabia from South America.

Pristine Arab Bedouin? Good luck with that, only about 15% of Muslims are Arab at this point, is that not true?

I hope that you understand that it champs the hindquarters on most informed Americans that we have found ourselves in bed with our sworn enemy!!!!

It makes us dizzy trying to make any sense of how our government has gotten us here.

By my reckoning, we needed a bigger Boogeyman. The last time I checked, KSA had a standing army of 75000; Iran had a standing army of half a million. That's a bigger Boogeyman.

I'm just calling it the way I see it, just one voice.

it is an exceedingly dangerous game that our countries play.

 

I've come back to this because it surprises me. I've had numerous conversations with Sunnis who use this concept to assure me that they are "forward-thinking". But you say that this concept has fallen out of favor with Sunnis.

I am also surprised to learn that the Zoroastrians are considered people of the book. I know nothing of the religion, but I thought the people of the book designation was strictly for Jews and Christians.

LSNED

 

Sunnis who are influenced by westernization are, indeed, trying to rekindle "Ijtihad", but the strictly sunni view on the issue was that the doors to "Ijtihad" have been closed for many centuries. That is well established.

The truth is that modern, westernized, notions of "ijtihad" are often other forms of "taghlid", with the copying now instead of the 'west', instead of reaching truths "independently".

In Shia methodology, which is akin to the process of someone becoming a "professor" and telling people to follow a properly trained doctor for medical advice instead of some snake oil salesmen, you need proper training to be in a position to give "independent" views on religion. That means only after finishing the curriculum of studies, first the preliminary curriculum which focuses on the traditional sources of clerical education, and then the so-called 'advanced curriculum' for training of someone in 'independent' analysis, and then publishing your treatise and having it accepted by your peers, with such peers recognizing you as a "mujtahid", is when you are in a position to issue 'independent' views on Islamic law with complete 'academic freedom' to do so. That is the path for one to become an Ayatollah, with the rest of the path basically about a popularity contest seeing which "source of emulation" has the greatest following both, among other Ayatollahs and among the community of faithful at large. The ones with the most following, then, becoming "Grand Ayatollahs".

In this regard, the Shia tradition is neither akin to the Protestant tradition which allows anyone to claim to understand the Bible reading it on his own. Nor like the Catholic tradition, since while there is a Shia clerical institution and hierarchy, once you have attained the rank of "Ayatollah" (and there are dozens of major Ayatollahs just in Iran), you are (on religious matters) equally entitled to give independent views on religion as any other Ayatollah and it is up to people to choose their source of emulation. The "infallible Pope" for the Shia, namely the hidden Imam in shia folklore, went into occultation in 873.

Sunni Muslims may or may not regard Zoroastrians as "people of the book", since strictly speaking, Zoroastrianism isn't part of the "Abrahamic religions". But Shia Muslims, and those in Iran in particular, certainly view them as "people of the book". That is enshrined both in Iran's constitution, under Article 13 (which lists them first in fact as among Iran's recognized and legally protected minorities). It is also part of Iran's "Islamic tradition" and history. In fact, some of the most important scholars in "Islamic philosophy" -- people who have monuments, highways, streets, awards and prizes -- named after them, were people like Sohravardi and Mulla Sadra -- both keenly aware of the Zoroastrian influence on their thoughts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab_al-Din_Yahya_ibn_Habash_Suhrawardi

 

I am all for 'enlightenment" but true enlightenment is about other things. The entire distinction between 'secular' and 'religious' is a purely western idea and phenomenon. It didn't exist in Iran before Islam nor afterwards.

My own general philosophy, whatever you label you want to give it, is as follows, which I quote from what I had previously told others in a discussion in this forum. My political and constitutional philosophy is one that I will outline later.
--------------

 

Islam took the stories of the bible and crafted them into an Arabic account.
Thus Ishmael is offered on the mount, not Isaac, for instance. Jesus is a
prophet, but not the Son of God.
The purpose of all this is to shift the entire meaning of the bible. I don't
consider that "sharing."
Abraham didn't come from Ur, but it's called Ur in our bible because that
is what it was called when old texts were re-translated.

 

If you read the account, Eschkol went to America to directly appeal to President Johnston.
Johnston told him sorry, he wasn't going to re-open international waters for Israel, and
sorry, he wasn't going to provide military support, no intelligence or even alliance due to
"constitutional reasons." This led to the Six Day War. Again, America only got involved
when the Russian threatened to invade Israel - and the Americans have been stuck
with an unwinnable, unfixable, damned if you and damned if you don't situation ever
since.

 

Enlightenment can be sought in most areas of life.

"The Enlightenment" refers to a specific period of time when there were great changes in political thought in the West.

Actually separation of religion and state long predates the US, if not Rome.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's was the instruction of a first-century Jew, so not a western idea at all but of eastern origin.

How is this done? Can you share examples?

 

True. And I am all for it

True. I am, actually, well versed in western civilization history and know what period "the Enlightenment" refers to.

Separation of church and state in the US, as envisioned by the framers of the constitution on the federal level (the state level separation was the product of subsequent constitutional doctrines incorporating the first amendment to apply to the states through the 14th amendment), is not the clearest expression of that distinction. The sharp break between 'secular' and 'religion' manifested itself most clearly in the wake of the French revolution.

"Judaic thought" itself had Hellenic and westernized influences as well as its opposite. The purely "Eastern" concept about government would be more aligned with the ideas behind Rabbinical kingdoms. Or, in the context of ancient Iranian ideology before Islam, in notions of a Just King. The Biblical approach, on the other hand, reflected (at least in my interpretation) attempts to espouse certain ethical protests while not questioning the ultimate authority of Rome.

I want to address this, which is important but requires a lot more discussion, later. But examples cover the mundane to the more significant issues. The mundane would be things like fashion: copying whatever is worn elsewhere and imagining that is some 'indicia' of progress. On the more significant levels, it involves ultimately who you are to follow as your "source of emulation" on a host of philosophical, political, economic, cultural and related issues. But this issue does require a lot more discussion and I will return to it later.

I also like to give you a fuller exposition of my views on government and the relationship between 'church and state'. I am very much against 'dogma', whether it be 'secular' in orientation or one that takes on 'religious' garb and labels. But I am also against artificial distinctions and, ultimately, want Iran to follow its own path and its own sources of emulation. Hopefully, my next message will clarify my thoughts on this issue sufficiently.

 

Where ? name the date and the place, what Islamist faction took led the Homes civilians and what's your source for it ?

 

Arabs have major political power and they outmaneuver Jewish power in UN votes, means nothing.

Nonsense, they were given a country the same time Jews got, both Jews and Arabs had to move or stay in the other country, your right doesn't cancel my right and if you're unwilling to compromise and declare war over it then you're the aggressor. now they lost their ability to create a country even thou they still have that right.

So what was the objective of the war they declared ? them are Arab lies.....

Read your own source man, it plainly states it was propaganda and the fact was 300 died in battle 4000 of Haifa Arabs remained, now they are about 40,000, so we know both males and females were involved in the process, there were Arab villages that helped Jews like Abu Gosh near Jerusalem, you speak Jihadi propaganda you dont even know how we live here...

 

Now what are you blubbering about ? The discussion is not about Homes - specifically ? What about Home's would you like to know and why does it matter.

The claim on the table is that Moderate rebels of any significant ceased to exist relatively early on in the war. That claim is backed up by our own defense intelligence agency, the media reporting at the time, and other sources.

Part Declassified Defense Intelligence agency memo from early 2012.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf


Same thing from the NY-Times in 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=

You asked about Homs - in April 2013 the Islamist's were running the show.
Syria: Brigade Fighting in Homs Implicated in Atrocities

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/13/syria-brigade-fighting-homs-implicated-atrocities

And we know that at the time this article was Written the fighting arm of the "FSA" radical Islamist Jihadists. - as per links above - and one can find hundreds of others - it is not some secret.

The moderate rebel lie did not come out in full force until our ISIS dog in Syria went off its leash and went into Iraq in 2014.

Your claim that we were not knowingly arming the radical Islamist's is preposterously false.

 

I do not deny the entire idea about the Abrahamic religions.

My goalpost always was right there.... that even today the religious Jews are taught that according to THEIR religion THEIR god supports them committing even genocide to thieve the land of Canaan. The violent oppression goes on today. Non Jews are made to leave every year. And so the "homeland of the Jews" end up being the most condemned nation on the planet. And that so called label of "homeland"... is all derived from their religion.