Rockets fired at Iraq base housing US troops

[iceman]

You had no point!  Either defend Soleimani by refuting or producing counter-evidence to what was leaked from MOIS or shut up!


Denying the MOIS, or discrediting it, will not help you or the murdered butcher in hell.

We're talking about someone who has gone either rogue or probably paid to cause mischief. Or could by something else. Did the head MOIS give a statement? What you've posted is that a statement of the head of the Iranian intelligence or government officials? This is where the credibility and weight is. According to you he's a butcher. According to me he's a shaheed.

[muslim720]

We're talking about someone who has gone either rogue or probably paid to cause mischief.

How do you know this?  Please cite me the name of this "someone who has gone either rogue or probably paid to cause mischief".

I have read parts of the excerpt in Farsi.  It does not mention a single name.  I am quite certain that either you do not understand the concept of "leaks" or you are playing dumb because this is too much for you to account for.

Did the head MOIS give a statement?

This was a leak, not a statement issued by the MOIS.  And why do you need a statement by the head of MOIS?  In their own reports, it is said that Soleimani was killing innocent Sunnis.  This was their assessment behind closed doors within their own circles.

What you've posted is that a statement of the head of the Iranian intelligence or government officials? This is where the credibility and weight is.

This was a report put together by MOIS which was leaked.  Far outweighs a statement!

According to you he's a butcher. According to me he's a shaheed.

According to Ministry of Intelligence and Security of Iran, he was a butcher. 

[iceman]

How do you know this?  Please cite me the name of this "someone who has gone either rogue or probably paid to cause mischief".

I have read parts of the excerpt in Farsi.  It does not mention a single name.  I am quite certain that either you do not understand the concept of "leaks" or you are playing dumb because this is too much for you to account for.


This was a leak, not a statement issued by the MOIS.  And why do you need a statement by the head of MOIS?  In their own reports, it is said that Soleimani was killing innocent Sunnis.  This was their assessment behind closed doors within their own circles.


This was a report put together by MOIS which was leaked.  Far outweighs a statement!


According to Ministry of Intelligence and Security of Iran, he was a butcher.

"How do you know this?  Please cite me the name of this "someone who has gone either rogue or probably paid to cause mischief".

You put the source down. Now who brought the information forward and how accurate and exact is that information. How authentic is it and how reliable is the source. Is the information direct from the head of the Iranian intelligence. Or is it from someone who claims it's from the Iranian intelligence.

"I have read parts of the excerpt in Farsi.  It does not mention a single name.  I am quite certain that either you do not understand the concept of "leaks" or you are playing dumb because this is too much for you to account for"

If there is information that goes against Iran then you want people to automatically accept it. If it falls in favour of Iran then you're hell-bent in refuting it. The suspicions and doubts will come out. This is something I very clearly understand. I don't need to play dumb because there's absolutely nothing on this site which is too much for me. It's all propaganda based on prejudice element. That's why it's so easy for me to handle.

"This was a leak, not a statement issued by the MOIS.  And why do you need a statement by the head of MOIS? 

How accurate and exact is that leak depends on the source it's coming from. A direct statement from MOIS or its head would most definitely have some weight and credibility. You're putting it forward as it's accurate and exact information without even examining it and looking into it. If Iran wasn't Shia and we had the following information you most certainly wouldn't be putting it forward. And if someone did you most certainly would be refuting it. This is how easy you make it for me. It's not about facts or the truth but about the hatred you hold for Shias. That's how simple and clear this is.

"In their own reports, it is said that Soleimani was killing innocent Sunnis.  This was their assessment behind closed doors within their own circles"

Soleimani wasn't even heard or known of until his assassination. Killing innocent Sunnis? The man was building bridges between Shias and Sunnis bettering the relationship between the two which has been hammered by the likes of your kind. Soleimani was protecting innocent Sunnis along with Shias from the Sunni extremists.

"This was a report put together by MOIS which was leaked.  Far outweighs a statement"

Leaked by whom. Who is the source and how accurate and exact is the information along with how honest and reliable is the source.

"According to Ministry of Intelligence and Security of Iran, he was a butcher"

😀 You make me laugh. Does a butcher get such a spectacular funeral. 😊 He was seen as a hero in as well as outside Iran. He was a very influential and experienced Figure and played a key role in defeating ISIS in the region as well as on and near the Iranian border. Otherwise the Americans could never handle them regardless of their might and power. Soleimani was taken out because he was bringing people together in the region. This didn't fall well with the Americans. They want conflict and unrest within the region because it benefits them. Some Muslims are just too dumb to understand that. And some don't want to like you.

[muslim720]

Is the information direct from the head of the Iranian intelligence. Or is it from someone who claims it's from the Iranian intelligence.

Why would the head of the Iranian intelligence leak confidential documents?  However, if you wish to cast doubt upon the leak because it was not leaked by the head of the intelligence, please visit the following link to see detailed excerpts with their dates and Farsi originals: https://theintercept.com/2019/11/18/iran-iraq-spy-cables/

If there is information that goes against Iran then you want people to automatically accept it. If it falls in favour of Iran then you're hell-bent in refuting it.

I am not sharing with you an opinion by an Iranian politician; this is 700 pages of documents leaked which were put together by the Iranian MOIS so there is no question of going for or against Iran.  It is only the stating of facts as per Iran's primary intelligence agency.

Unless you claim to know Soleimani more than the agency to which he reported, you have no case.

It's all propaganda based on prejudice element.

If the Iranian MOIS is all propaganda to you, how can you accept anything said by the Iranian state?  I seriously want to know how is it that you are privy to information that eludes the eyes of MOIS.

How accurate and exact is that leak depends on the source it's coming from. A direct statement from MOIS or its head would most definitely have some weight and credibility.

Why would the head of the intelligence jeopardize his own agency?  But you can be sure that the report was approved and archived with his blessing which is why they exist in the first place.

You're putting it forward as it's accurate and exact information without even examining it and looking into it. If Iran wasn't Shia and we had the following information you most certainly wouldn't be putting it forward. And if someone did you most certainly would be refuting it. This is how easy you make it for me. It's not about facts or the truth but about the hatred you hold for Shias. That's how simple and clear this is.

I will pause till you have your diapers changed.

The man was building bridges between Shias and Sunnis bettering the relationship between the two which has been hammered by the likes of your kind. Soleimani was protecting innocent Sunnis along with Shias from the Sunni extremists.

Now that you have your diapers changed, I hope you can grasp this one simple fact: the agency to which Soleimani used to report says that he was guilty of killing innocent Sunnis.  Between your words and leaked spy cables from MOIS, I side with the latter.

😀 You make me laugh. Does a butcher get such a spectacular funeral. 😊

When the Saudi King, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, passed away in 2015, there was a large US contingent in Riyadh to honor him, let alone Saudis.  Clearly, you must think he was a great man because he had a spectacular funeral.

Soleimani was taken out because he was bringing people together in the region.

Not according to MOIS, Iraqis and Lebanese!  So try harder next time.

[iceman]

Why would the head of the Iranian intelligence leak confidential documents?  However, if you wish to cast doubt upon the leak because it was not leaked by the head of the intelligence, please visit the following link to see detailed excerpts with their dates and Farsi originals: https://theintercept.com/2019/11/18/iran-iraq-spy-cables/


I am not sharing with you an opinion by an Iranian politician; this is 700 pages of documents leaked which were put together by the Iranian MOIS so there is no question of going for or against Iran.  It is only the stating of facts as per Iran's primary intelligence agency.

Unless you claim to know Soleimani more than the agency to which he reported, you have no case.


If the Iranian MOIS is all propaganda to you, how can you accept anything said by the Iranian state?  I seriously want to know how is it that you are privy to information that eludes the eyes of MOIS.


Why would the head of the intelligence jeopardize his own agency?  But you can be sure that the report was approved and archived with his blessing which is why they exist in the first place.


I will pause till you have your diapers changed.


Now that you have your diapers changed, I hope you can grasp this one simple fact: the agency to which Soleimani used to report says that he was guilty of killing innocent Sunnis.  Between your words and leaked spy cables from MOIS, I side with the latter.


When the Saudi King, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, passed away in 2015, there was a large US contingent in Riyadh to honor him, let alone Saudis.  Clearly, you must think he was a great man because he had a spectacular funeral.


Not according to MOIS, Iraqis and Lebanese!  So try harder next time.

"The Story Behind the Iran Cables

The source said they wanted to “let the world know what Iran is doing in my country Iraq.”  They sent The Intercept 700 pages of secret intelligence reports from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS, but never revealed their own identity.  This kind of leak is unprecedented for Iran, a country with a highly secretive government and spy agencies that guard their confidential information zealously"

"The source said they wanted to"

Who's the source?

"let the world know what Iran is doing in my country Iraq.” 

So the source ain't Iranian to begin with.

"They sent" Again they who?

"The Intercept 700 pages of secret intelligence reports from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS"

They, who ever they are and who most certainly aren't Iranian, somehow miraculously got hold of very important documents? Wow. This sounds like some part of a film.

"but never revealed their own identity"

Why? Because they would be questioned by the world media and wouldn't be able to answer relevant questions? Or is there some other excuse. Anyways, you make MOIS sound like children's play school.

"Unless you claim to know Soleimani more than the agency to which he reported, you have no case"

You have no case. The agency that Soleimani reported to had evidence against him, on that note firing him would be so easy for any agency to do. Which world are you living in.

"If the Iranian MOIS is all propaganda to you"

It's not from MOIS but from an unknown source which can't identify themselves for some weird reason.

"Why would the head of the intelligence jeopardize his own agency"

The head of the agency that Soleimani worked for had evidence on how he was behaving and acting and he didn't bother to do anything about it when it was on paper? I'm really having concerns understanding this.

"But you can be sure that the report was approved and archived with his blessing which is why they exist in the first place"

But nothing was done about it when an agency can and does act on any agent stepping out of line. Wow. This is hard to understand.

"I will pause till you have your diapers changed"

😀 I'm not going to go down to your level. I have no interest in the gutter. 😊

"the agency to which Soleimani used to report says that he was guilty of killing innocent Sunnis"

And nobody took him into custody and put him on trial? Never mind about that he wasn't even fired? Wow. Some fact you've got here.

"When the Saudi King, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, passed away in 2015, there was a large US contingent in Riyadh to honor him, let alone Saudis"

And what is your point, that there were foreigners in Iran who came out in millions for Soleimani's funeral 😊 Wake up man. You're so blind with hatred about the Shias that you can't think straight at all.

[muslim720]

"The Story Behind the Iran Cables

The source said they wanted to “let the world know what Iran is doing in my country Iraq.”  They sent The Intercept 700 pages of secret intelligence reports from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS, but never revealed their own identity.  This kind of leak is unprecedented for Iran, a country with a highly secretive government and spy agencies that guard their confidential information zealously"

"The source said they wanted to"

Who's the source?

Don't forget this bit in your overzealous selective reading: "The Intercept and the Times verified the authenticity of the documents but do not know who leaked them. The Intercept communicated over encrypted channels with the source, who declined to meet with a reporter".

So the source ain't Iranian to begin with.

Who said leaks are authentic only if they come from within an organization or from a citizen of a state?

They, who ever they are and who most certainly aren't Iranian, somehow miraculously got hold of very important documents?

Have you heard of WikiLeaks?  While they too publish classified information provided by anonymous sources, these sources, rest assured, do not obtain by any sensitive material by miracle.  I suggest you read up on how classified information is leaked and in what (different) ways.

Why? Because they would be questioned by the world media and wouldn't be able to answer relevant questions? Or is there some other excuse.

A more probabilistic answer would be safety.  The leaked documents highlight Iran's influence on Iraq and the source would not have seen the light of the following day had he identified himself.

It's not from MOIS but from an unknown source which can't identify themselves for some weird reason.

From an unknown source but the authenticity of these documents have been verified.

The head of the agency that Soleimani worked for had evidence on how he was behaving and acting and he didn't bother to do anything about it when it was on paper? I'm really having concerns understanding this.

...because you consider Iran to be infallible.  The argument is that Soleimani's crimes were so grotesque and so many that even Iran's MOIS called for reprimanding him.  And these reports only highlight his activities between 2013 and 2015.  God knows what more he did in the last (approximate) 5 years of his life.

But nothing was done about it when an agency can and does act on any agent stepping out of line. Wow. This is hard to understand.

...once again, he was doing the agency's dirty work so the agency did not take action against him.  It ONLY became a concern when his crimes (the reason why he was planted in Iraq by Iran) became too obvious for the Iraqis to see so in order to not have their cover blown, the Iran's MOIS sought to reprimand him.  In other words, they wanted to ask him to ease off temporarily so as to not create further waves.

And nobody took him into custody and put him on trial? Never mind about that he wasn't even fired? Wow. Some fact you've got here.

Says a lot about Iran and their (false) claim to resist against oppression visited upon the Ummah, right?

And what is your point, that there were foreigners in Iran who came out in millions for Soleimani's funeral 😊 Wake up man. You're so blind with hatred about the Shias that you can't think straight at all.

A pompous funeral was your escape route.  If a pompous funeral is sufficient to make one a great human being, you cannot help but say the same about the Saudi King.

[iceman]

Don't forget this bit in your overzealous selective reading: "The Intercept and the Times verified the authenticity of the documents but do not know who leaked them. The Intercept communicated over encrypted channels with the source, who declined to meet with a reporter".


Who said leaks are authentic only if they come from within an organization or from a citizen of a state?


Have you heard of WikiLeaks?  While they too publish classified information provided by anonymous sources, these sources, rest assured, do not obtain by any sensitive material by miracle.  I suggest you read up on how classified information is leaked and in what (different) ways.


A more probabilistic answer would be safety.  The leaked documents highlight Iran's influence on Iraq and the source would not have seen the light of the following day had he identified himself.


From an unknown source but the authenticity of these documents have been verified.


...because you consider Iran to be infallible.  The argument is that Soleimani's crimes were so grotesque and so many that even Iran's MOIS called for reprimanding him.  And these reports only highlight his activities between 2013 and 2015.  God knows what more he did in the last (approximate) 5 years of his life.


...once again, he was doing the agency's dirty work so the agency did not take action against him.  It ONLY became a concern when his crimes (the reason why he was planted in Iraq by Iran) became too obvious for the Iraqis to see so in order to not have their cover blown, the Iran's MOIS sought to reprimand him.  In other words, they wanted to ask him to ease off temporarily so as to not create further waves.


Says a lot about Iran and their (false) claim to resist against oppression visited upon the Ummah, right?


A pompous funeral was your escape route.  If a pompous funeral is sufficient to make one a great human being, you cannot help but say the same about the Saudi King.

"The Intercept and the Times verified the authenticity of the documents"

And how did they do that? Did they get intouch with MOIS and MOIS confirmed it?

"The Intercept communicated over encrypted channels with the source, who declined to meet with a reporter".

Why did the source decline to meet? What's there to hide or be secretive about?

"Who said leaks are authentic only if they come from within an organization or from a citizen of a state"

Again how did they confirm that the documents were authentic?

"Have you heard of WikiLeaks?  While they too publish classified information provided by anonymous sources"

Again how do you confirm that the information is authentic?

"I suggest you read up on how classified information is leaked and in what (different) ways"

I'm not talking about leaks and ways, how do you confirm it's authentic, it's true and exact?

"Iran's influence on Iraq"

Iran's influence on Iraq shouldn't be an issue or a matter of concern since how the Iraqi Shias have been treated and the majority of Iraq is probably Shia. Iran has every right to protect Shias in other parts within its region. The US is 6000 miles away its shores in the Persian Gulf and has been trying to influence the region away from its shores, so why are people worried about Iran when it has reason and cause and that is to protect others. If the governments protect and treat Shias equally and the same as other citizens then Iran wouldn't have any business.

[muslim720]

And how did they do that? Did they get intouch with MOIS and MOIS confirmed it?

It does not say how they did that, however, getting in touch with MOIS is not the only way to do so.  For example, if the leak is a result of a compromised email, DKIM can be used to verify authenticity.

Why did the source decline to meet? What's there to hide or be secretive about?

Didn't I already answer this?  Maybe the source fears for his life.  It is amazing that you can go to unimaginable lengths to question this document but the most straightforward reason why the source wants to remain anonymous eludes you.

Iran has every right to protect Shias in other parts within its region.

So who decides when it is time for Iran to step in?  If you say all Muslim countries vote then you should know that no such thing happened when Iran started interfering in Iraq, Syria, even Lebanon.  And if you say that only Iran should decide when it is time to protect the Shias then what is the difference between Iran and USA?  After all, USA, too, decides on its own when it is time to intervene in other countries to save democracy or it's allies when they are "under threat".

[iceman]

It does not say how they did that, however, getting in touch with MOIS is not the only way to do so.  For example, if the leak is a result of a compromised email, DKIM can be used to verify authenticity.


Didn't I already answer this?  Maybe the source fears for his life.  It is amazing that you can go to unimaginable lengths to question this document but the most straightforward reason why the source wants to remain anonymous eludes you.


So who decides when it is time for Iran to step in?  If you say all Muslim countries vote then you should know that no such thing happened when Iran started interfering in Iraq, Syria, even Lebanon.  And if you say that only Iran should decide when it is time to protect the Shias then what is the difference between Iran and USA?  After all, USA, too, decides on its own when it is time to intervene in other countries to save democracy or it's allies when they are "under threat".

"So who decides when it is time for Iran to step in?  If you say all Muslim countries vote then you should know that no such thing happened when Iran started interfering in Iraq, Syria, even Lebanon.  And if you say that only Iran should decide when it is time to protect the Shias then what is the difference between Iran and USA?  After all, USA, too, decides on its own when it is time to intervene in other countries to save democracy or it's allies when they are "under threat"

Exactly my point. So what seems to be the problem when it comes to Iran? The Saudis have been spending millions of dollars trying to spread Wahabi Islam, the west has been trying to influence the region with their version of freedom and democracy and Iran doesn't have any right to protect oppressed Shias within its own region nor does it have the right to protect itself from further threats or invasion like Saddam tried to invade Iran in September 1980. America sells billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia over a ten year period. But Iran shouldn't be worried or concerned about amy threat even when it faced an invasion from an Arab country in 1980. Doesn't Iran have the right to protect itself.

[muslim720]

Exactly my point. So what seems to be the problem when it comes to Iran? The Saudis have been spending millions of dollars trying to spread Wahabi Islam, the west has been trying to influence the region with their version of freedom and democracy and Iran doesn't have any right to protect oppressed Shias within its own region nor does it have the right to protect itself from further threats or invasion like Saddam tried to invade Iran in September 1980. America sells billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia over a ten year period. But Iran shouldn't be worried or concerned about amy threat even when it faced an invasion from an Arab country in 1980. Doesn't Iran have the right to protect itself.

Glad you had no answer for anything else I stated.

Coming to this last point, my argument was - and has been - that Iran is no better than USA, Saudi Arabia and others.  I want to know why is it that you condemn the latter two but not the first.

You are trying to turn the discussion into a cause-effect argument which does not serve you in the least.  Your cause is the Saudi spending to spread Wahabism and as its effect, you are proposing that Iran is doing the same to counter Saudi Arabia.  What you do not realize is that Iran underwent a revolution and changed its ways, not the rest of the world.  So if anything, reality is the opposite of what you are saying.  Iran is the cause; Iranian interference is not the effect.

With that out of the way, I would like to compliment you on your logical jump.  How you go from questioning if Iran has "any right to protect oppressed Shias" to "Doesn't Iran have the right to protect itself" is marvelous.  Unless you think all the Shias are the property of Iran, I see a huge loophole that you cannot plug.  But precisely that is the issue with Iran; it considers its revolution to go beyond its borders and come to the rescue of any "disposed" (a.k.a. Shia) in the world.  And yet Shias hate US for doing exactly what Iran does and openly states in its constitution.

[iceman]

Glad you had no answer for anything else I stated.

Coming to this last point, my argument was - and has been - that Iran is no better than USA, Saudi Arabia and others.  I want to know why is it that you condemn the latter two but not the first.

You are trying to turn the discussion into a cause-effect argument which does not serve you in the least.  Your cause is the Saudi spending to spread Wahabism and as its effect, you are proposing that Iran is doing the same to counter Saudi Arabia.  What you do not realize is that Iran underwent a revolution and changed its ways, not the rest of the world.  So if anything, reality is the opposite of what you are saying.  Iran is the cause; Iranian interference is not the effect.

With that out of the way, I would like to compliment you on your logical jump.  How you go from questioning if Iran has "any right to protect oppressed Shias" to "Doesn't Iran have the right to protect itself" is marvelous.  Unless you think all the Shias are the property of Iran, I see a huge loophole that you cannot plug.  But precisely that is the issue with Iran; it considers its revolution to go beyond its borders and come to the rescue of any "disposed" (a.k.a. Shia) in the world.  And yet Shias hate US for doing exactly what Iran does and openly states in its constitution.

"Glad you had no answer for anything else I stated"

I've given you plenty of answers in the form of questions and queries. You haven't addressed any and are just going in circles. Have the reports been confirmed from either MOIS or the Iranian government? Otherwise they don't have much credibility. Propaganda against Iran has been their since the revolution.

"Coming to this last point, my argument was - and has been - that Iran is no better than USA, Saudi Arabia and others.  I want to know why is it that you condemn the latter two but not the first"

I ask you that you're always quick to criticise and condemn Iran but never bother with any other country. But only when mentioned and challenged you come out with just a few words, not to criticise and condemn other countries for what they're doing and involved in, only to obtain criticism for Iran. Iran is Shia and that's exactly where you come from and where your problem lies with Iran.

Iran is better than the others. You start protecting the Shias then Iran will have no business outside its borders. Tell the international community to deal with and treat Saudi Arabia just as they deal with and treat Iran.

[muslim720]

I've given you plenty of answers in the form of questions and queries.

Only an idiot would account for facts by posing questions.  Worse, only an idiot par excellence would admit it.

Have the reports been confirmed from either MOIS or the Iranian government? Otherwise they don't have much credibility.

Why would Iran confirm damning evidence against its own self?  It is not like leaks, in other cases, have been confirmed by those who own the information that you are demanding the same in this case.

It is a breach of Iranian integrity when it comes to sensitive information.  It is already damning enough; to acknowledge it would be doubly damning.

Propaganda against Iran has been their since the revolution.

This is your sickness.  Nothing will ever cut it for you.  Even if Jibreel (as) came and testified against Iran.

I ask you that you're always quick to criticise and condemn Iran but never bother with any other country.

Up until recently - basically until I started listening to the Saudi side - I maintained that Iran is a million times better than Saudi Arabia.  So you can stuff your ad hominem where the sun does not shine.

Iran is better than the others.

How?  And please, no more questions to answer this question.  Ask me how Saudi Arabia is better and I will give you straight facts.  I won't take you around in circles.  And you had the gall to accuse me of going in circles.

[iceman]

Only an idiot would account for facts by posing questions.  Worse, only an idiot par excellence would admit it.


Why would Iran confirm damning evidence against its own self?  It is not like leaks, in other cases, have been confirmed by those who own the information that you are demanding the same in this case.

It is a breach of Iranian integrity when it comes to sensitive information.  It is already damning enough; to acknowledge it would be doubly damning.


This is your sickness.  Nothing will ever cut it for you.  Even if Jibreel (as) came and testified against Iran.


Up until recently - basically until I started listening to the Saudi side - I maintained that Iran is a million times better than Saudi Arabia.  So you can stuff your ad hominem where the sun does not shine.


How?  And please, no more questions to answer this question.  Ask me how Saudi Arabia is better and I will give you straight facts.  I won't take you around in circles.  And you had the gall to accuse me of going in circles.

"Only an idiot would account for facts by posing questions.  Worse, only an idiot par excellence would admit it"

Correction, you only have idiots who always duck and dive when ever something is asked or pointed out.

"Why would Iran confirm damning evidence against its own self?  It is not like leaks, in other cases, have been confirmed by those who own the information that you are demanding the same in this case"

You call it a leak, it would be a leak if confirmed by the authority or agency in question. Then the leak would be confirmed and recognised as a leak. Does MOIS confirm it? Do they accept it? Then it's a leak. Otherwise you know you're talking wind as usual.

"It is a breach of Iranian integrity when it comes to sensitive information"

Firstly does the agency confirm it? If it's not confirmed then it's false information.

"It is already damning enough; to acknowledge it would be doubly damning"

This is Iran we're talking about and since they're Shia, so everything that goes against them will automatically be accepted by you. And what ever falls in favour will most definitely be refuted by you, because they're Shia. If Iran was Sunni then we wouldn't be talking about them. That's the whole point. And that's what it evolves around.

"This is your sickness.  Nothing will ever cut it for you.

For me it's not about Iran but about reality, facts, honesty and the truth. Want to challenge me on that? For you is all about being an anti Shia.

"Even if Jibreel (as) came and testified against Iran"

Where is Gabriel? Don't use tactics to manipulate me.

"Up until recently - basically until I started listening to the Saudi side - I maintained that Iran is a million times better than Saudi Arabia"

Listening? That's your problem, you listen and take sides. You don't look into things with an open mind and learn. That's why you don't think or speak rationally


"So you can stuff your ad hominem where the sun does not shine"

I don't mind doing that but first you need to show me exactly where the sun don't shine 😊

[iceman]

Only an idiot would account for facts by posing questions.  Worse, only an idiot par excellence would admit it.


Why would Iran confirm damning evidence against its own self?  It is not like leaks, in other cases, have been confirmed by those who own the information that you are demanding the same in this case.

It is a breach of Iranian integrity when it comes to sensitive information.  It is already damning enough; to acknowledge it would be doubly damning.


This is your sickness.  Nothing will ever cut it for you.  Even if Jibreel (as) came and testified against Iran.


Up until recently - basically until I started listening to the Saudi side - I maintained that Iran is a million times better than Saudi Arabia.  So you can stuff your ad hominem where the sun does not shine.


How?  And please, no more questions to answer this question.  Ask me how Saudi Arabia is better and I will give you straight facts.  I won't take you around in circles.  And you had the gall to accuse me of going in circles.

"How?  And please, no more questions to answer this question.  Ask me how Saudi Arabia is better and I will give you straight facts.  I won't take you around in circles.  And you had the gall to accuse me of going in circles"

You don't have an open mind. You don't think or speak rationally. So facts really wouldn't mean anything to you. But anyways how is Saudi Arabia better than Iran? Go on, lets here it.

[muslim720]

You don't have an open mind. You don't think or speak rationally. So facts really wouldn't mean anything to you. But anyways how is Saudi Arabia better than Iran? Go on, lets here it.

1.  Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism.  On the contrary, it works with the international community to provide intelligence to curb terrorism.  Iran, on the other hand, has staged attacks on at least three continents: Asia, South America and Europe.  Iran has helped rogue individuals (like Saif Al-Adel) to attack foreigners in Saudi Arabia - in fact, provided them the explosives - which could have had severe repercussions for the Holy Land in the form of sanctions and/or retaliation.  Going a step further, Iran sheltered Saif El-Adel and others like him; some are still living in Iran.

2.  Saudi Arabia promotes Wahabism but does so without encroaching upon other schools.  Iran, on the other hand, not only spreads Wilayah Faqih in Shi'i regions but also sends missionaries to Sunni-majority areas in Asia, Middle-East and Africa which only worsens an already-raging sectarian war.

3.  Saudi Arabia, as hard as it may be for you to believe, has proposals and solutions.  For too long, I was a fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I would wait impatiently for all of his UN addresses and CNN interviews.  However, he hardly had any workable solutions, now that I look back.  On the other hand, listening to the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, I not only found him to make some valid points but also propose viable solutions to the problems of the region.

For example, the Saudi Foreign Minister has never said (at least on record) that he wants a regime change in Iran; he actually denies that Saudi Arabia wants regime change in Iran.  He says that Saudi Arabia wishes for Iran to change it's policies.  Go to any Shi'i mosque for comparison and they will foam at the mouth at the very notion of "Aal-e-Saud" and pray for the collapse of the Saudi government.  Little do they know that while they can crawl to Karbala and Najaf, we (Sunnis) have Mecca and Madina only.  An unstable Saudi Arabia will spell disaster for our Two Holy Mosques.


4.  Lastly, Saudi Arabia has a vision.  Better late than never, the Saudis have now realized that their backward culture has not only prevented them from realizing their true potential but that it has empowered Iran.  And that this tension has kept the region divided and weak.  Hence, Vision 2030!  Saudi Arabia is trying to bring reform without compromising the Shariah and it has its arms open for the rest of the Middle East, including Iran, to uplift the region via synergy and cooperation.

And I won't even include the number of Qur'ans that are printed in Saudi Arabia and distributed for free around the world.  Living in New Delhi when I was a child, I remember Afghans would go to the Saudi embassy to obtain copies of the Qur'an translated in English and other languages, all with basic tafseer, etc.

[iceman]

1.  Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism.  On the contrary, it works with the international community to provide intelligence to curb terrorism.  Iran, on the other hand, has staged attacks on at least three continents: Asia, South America and Europe.  Iran has helped rogue individuals (like Saif Al-Adel) to attack foreigners in Saudi Arabia - in fact, provided them the explosives - which could have had severe repercussions for the Holy Land in the form of sanctions and/or retaliation.  Going a step further, Iran sheltered Saif El-Adel and others like him; some are still living in Iran.

2.  Saudi Arabia promotes Wahabism but does so without encroaching upon other schools.  Iran, on the other hand, not only spreads Wilayah Faqih in Shi'i regions but also sends missionaries to Sunni-majority areas in Asia, Middle-East and Africa which only worsens an already-raging sectarian war.

3.  Saudi Arabia, as hard as it may be for you to believe, has proposals and solutions.  For too long, I was a fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I would wait impatiently for all of his UN addresses and CNN interviews.  However, he hardly had any workable solutions, now that I look back.  On the other hand, listening to the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, I not only found him to make some valid points but also propose viable solutions to the problems of the region.

For example, the Saudi Foreign Minister has never said (at least on record) that he wants a regime change in Iran; he actually denies that Saudi Arabia wants regime change in Iran.  He says that Saudi Arabia wishes for Iran to change it's policies.  Go to any Shi'i mosque for comparison and they will foam at the mouth at the very notion of "Aal-e-Saud" and pray for the collapse of the Saudi government.  Little do they know that while they can crawl to Karbala and Najaf, we (Sunnis) have Mecca and Madina only.  An unstable Saudi Arabia will spell disaster for our Two Holy Mosques.


4.  Lastly, Saudi Arabia has a vision.  Better late than never, the Saudis have now realized that their backward culture has not only prevented them from realizing their true potential but that it has empowered Iran.  And that this tension has kept the region divided and weak.  Hence, Vision 2030!  Saudi Arabia is trying to bring reform without compromising the Shariah and it has its arms open for the rest of the Middle East, including Iran, to uplift the region via synergy and cooperation.

And I won't even include the number of Qur'ans that are printed in Saudi Arabia and distributed for free around the world.  Living in New Delhi when I was a child, I remember Afghans would go to the Saudi embassy to obtain copies of the Qur'an translated in English and other languages, all with basic tafseer, etc.

"Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism.  On the contrary, it works with the international community to provide intelligence to curb terrorism"

LOL.

https://youtu.be/sCUbFJeRfME

https://youtu.be/3l1qt7B8CCo

[iceman]

"Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism.  On the contrary, it works with the international community to provide intelligence to curb terrorism"

LOL.

https://youtu.be/sCUbFJeRfME

https://youtu.be/3l1qt7B8CCo

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newsweek.com/why-saudi-arabia-join-north-korea-us-state-terrorism-list-911-717640%3Famp%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwivnqLLi8jnAhUuUhUIHbHPCG4QFjACegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0oGQCyViw2zre5NKGByd7v&ampcf=1

[iceman]

1.  Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism.  On the contrary, it works with the international community to provide intelligence to curb terrorism.  Iran, on the other hand, has staged attacks on at least three continents: Asia, South America and Europe.  Iran has helped rogue individuals (like Saif Al-Adel) to attack foreigners in Saudi Arabia - in fact, provided them the explosives - which could have had severe repercussions for the Holy Land in the form of sanctions and/or retaliation.  Going a step further, Iran sheltered Saif El-Adel and others like him; some are still living in Iran.

2.  Saudi Arabia promotes Wahabism but does so without encroaching upon other schools.  Iran, on the other hand, not only spreads Wilayah Faqih in Shi'i regions but also sends missionaries to Sunni-majority areas in Asia, Middle-East and Africa which only worsens an already-raging sectarian war.

3.  Saudi Arabia, as hard as it may be for you to believe, has proposals and solutions.  For too long, I was a fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I would wait impatiently for all of his UN addresses and CNN interviews.  However, he hardly had any workable solutions, now that I look back.  On the other hand, listening to the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, I not only found him to make some valid points but also propose viable solutions to the problems of the region.

For example, the Saudi Foreign Minister has never said (at least on record) that he wants a regime change in Iran; he actually denies that Saudi Arabia wants regime change in Iran.  He says that Saudi Arabia wishes for Iran to change it's policies.  Go to any Shi'i mosque for comparison and they will foam at the mouth at the very notion of "Aal-e-Saud" and pray for the collapse of the Saudi government.  Little do they know that while they can crawl to Karbala and Najaf, we (Sunnis) have Mecca and Madina only.  An unstable Saudi Arabia will spell disaster for our Two Holy Mosques.


4.  Lastly, Saudi Arabia has a vision.  Better late than never, the Saudis have now realized that their backward culture has not only prevented them from realizing their true potential but that it has empowered Iran.  And that this tension has kept the region divided and weak.  Hence, Vision 2030!  Saudi Arabia is trying to bring reform without compromising the Shariah and it has its arms open for the rest of the Middle East, including Iran, to uplift the region via synergy and cooperation.

And I won't even include the number of Qur'ans that are printed in Saudi Arabia and distributed for free around the world.  Living in New Delhi when I was a child, I remember Afghans would go to the Saudi embassy to obtain copies of the Qur'an translated in English and other languages, all with basic tafseer, etc.

"Iran, on the other hand, has staged attacks on at least three continents: Asia, South America and Europe"

Back it up.

"Iran has helped rogue individuals (like Saif Al-Adel) to attack foreigners in Saudi Arabia"

Rogue individuals? What do you mean by that. Who are MEK MUJAHIDEEN E KHALQ. And where does their leader live. And the havoc and killing they've caused in Iran since after the revolution, who's responsible for that. Who's harbouring, aiding and helping this terror group MEK against Iran.

"Saudi Arabia promotes Wahabism but does so without encroaching upon other schools.  Iran, on the other hand, not only spreads Wilayah Faqih in Shi'i regions but also sends missionaries to Sunni-majority areas in Asia, Middle-East and Africa which only worsens an already-raging sectarian war"

The Saudi stance on promoting Wahabism, why doesn't this worsen an already-raging sectarian war?

And Iran stance on spreading Wilayat e Faqih, how does this worsen an already-raging sectarian war? And who started and is responsible for this already-raging sectarian war?

:Saudi Arabia, as hard as it may be for you to believe, has proposals and solutions"

According to the US and UK the Saudis are the biggest sponsors of terrorism but are too afraid to sanction Saudi Arabia because they'll lose a lot of business which they survive on.

"On the other hand, listening to the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, I not only found him to make some valid points but also propose viable solutions to the problems of the region"

What are those valid points and viable solutions to the problems of the region? Lets hear them.

[muslim720]

Back it up.

Allow me to at least link Iran to two terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia alone: Khobar Tower Bombings in 1996 (perpetrated by Hezbollah, which killed US servicemen and could have been used against Saudi Arabia subjecting it to sanctions and/or invasion) and Riyadh Compounds Bombings in 2003 (Saif El-Adel, the perpetrator, was given safe haven in Iran).

This on top of countless Saudi diplomats killed in places like Karachi, Bangkok (two diplomats) and elsewhere.

Rogue individuals? What do you mean by that. Who are MEK MUJAHIDEEN E KHALQ. And where does their leader live. And the havoc and killing they've caused in Iran since after the revolution, who's responsible for that. Who's harbouring, aiding and helping this terror group MEK against Iran.

Do tell us!

The Saudi stance on promoting Wahabism, why doesn't this worsen an already-raging sectarian war?

It is possible that spread of Wahabism can worsen the sectarian divide but Saudi Arabia keeps its activities outside Shia-majority regions.  Iran actually targets Sunni countries causing division not just within a country but even within families.  You have family members at each others' throats because one got brainwashed by the Iranian missionaries.

According to the US and UK the Saudis are the biggest sponsors of terrorism but are too afraid to sanction Saudi Arabia because they'll lose a lot of business which they survive on.

Reference and source please!

What are those valid points and viable solutions to the problems of the region? Lets hear them.

Ahmed Al-Jubeir has many videos on YouTube; check them out!

Here is my favorite....watch how he kicks the ass of the dignitary from "the Iran".