Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

So why did the USA invade Iraq ? Was it for oil ? Or was it a conspiracy similair to the Hezbushaytan conspiracy in Lebanon ?

The US did not invade Iraq for oil. Infact they have spent billions of dollars on this war and the most they could get out of Iraq's oil is to get their money back.

The truth is that just as Israel invaded Lebanon to make Hezbushaytan look like heroes, the US actually invaded Iraq to make Muqtada al-Sadr the hero of Iraq.

This time however, since Saddam's Government was destroyed by the US, Moqtada al-Sadr was actually meant to take over Iraq. This is why we see that the mainstream Media (which is controled by the same people who control the Governments) spoke against the war and so many controled oppositions and fake leftists were against this war...

The war on Afghanistan is silenced down by the media and the fake left who lead and set up the main protests pretty much ignore Afghanistan, concentrating almost entirely on Iraq instead.

We also saw how the Abu Ghurayb torture pictures came out and were spread in all the mainstream newspapers and the TV. These are the same newspapers and TV channels who censor 99% of the truth about world events and who cover up much of the crimes of the western Governments. But for some reason everyone suddenly seemed to turn against the Iraq war, including the fat cats and the members of secret societies and even the mainstream media.

We also saw how the US Government accused Iraq of having WMDs, but when they couldnt find any, they actually said so !

This is the same Government who covered up what really happened on 9/11. After the WTC attacks, the US Government immediately blamed the attacks on Al-Qaeda, and after Osama bin Laden denied responsiblity for the attacks the Government made numerous fake videos and audio tapes and all sorts of fake evidence to try and convince people that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

But again, when it came to Iraq, things were different. The US politicians just came out and admitted that they have found no WMDs, thus delibrately making the war unpopular.

Bush also accused Saddam of involvement in 9/11, but strange he later denied it. But why did he deny it ? If he had lied in the first place, why didnt he continue lying? If he had no evidence in the first place, why didnt he continue lying without any evidence ? Or could it be that he delibrately wants to be seen as a liar, thus making the Iraq war and the US right wing more unpopular.

The truth is that the US knew from day one that Iraq had no WMDs. Even Collin Powell admitted this when he first came to office. And the real question is, why was the US worried about Iraq's alleged Chemical and Biological bombs, when Iran was allegedly making NUCLEAR bombs ???

Surely Nuclear weapons should be a bigger concern... but strangely the US and the western media only turned their eyes towards Iran AFTER it was made clear to the whole world that Iraq did not have WMDs.

In other words, now that the US accuses Iran of making WMDs no one believes them because they had already lied about Iraq.

But the real question is Why didnt they invade Iran before Iraq ? This is while Iran is SUPPOSEDLY USA's biggest enemy in the middle east, and while Saddam was USA's former ally.

Iran was also a neighbour of Afghanistan, making it easier for the US to move it's forces from Iran to Afghanistan and from Afghanistan to Iran.

Now the media is trying to decieve us into thinking that the US wanted to invade Iran After Iraq... some going as far as claiming that the US wanted to "surround" Iran from the east and the west. This is rediculous though because it would have been much easier for the US to invade Iran in the first place, or at least right after Afghanistan.

No, the truth is something else. The US didnt invade Iran because they dont even want to invade Iran, and infact, as I have explained on another thread, Iran and USA are secretly working together:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7785& ;PN=1&TPN=1

Now consider that the US and Iran are only pretending to be enemies and then we can think about the real reason why the US invaded Iraq.

If you have a good memory, you may remember that when the US first invaded Iraq, a Shiah cleric by the name of Moqtada al-Sadr showed up, who claimed to have risen up to fight against the invaders and free Iraq.

The media suddenly concentrated on him, even though he and his forces had done very little and had killed very few if any American soldiers.

Moqtada al-Sadr's army, which he calls "the Mahdi Army", were seen as a serious force to be reckoned with... they were seen to be the "Hizbullah" of Iraq. Infact, they are closely allied to "Hezbullah" (Hezbushaytan) and they constantly praise Hasan Nasrallah.

I have no doubt that Moqtada al-Sadr was meant to be the Nasrallah of Iraq. In other words, the plan was that he would rise up against the US, and the US would then leave all of a sudden. Sadr would then be seen as the hero and saviour of Iraq, and with Saddam gone, he would take over Iraq and eventually hand it over to Iran.

This is why Ayad Allawi was at first installed as the president of Iraq. Although Allawi was born into a Shiah family he was not seen as a Shiah as he did not practice his religion in any way. He was seen as just another US puppet, and this was done to make the US occupation even more unpopular and increase support for Sadr.

This is also why the real number of American soldiers killed is not reported. Ofcourse in most wars Governments try to claim that fewer soldiers have been kill than the enemy claims, however in this war the USA has been minimising the casualty reports like no other. The Army of Rashideen (Jaysharrashedeen, one of the Islamic yet nationalist resistance groups in Iraq) made a documentary where they gave examples of how the US casualties were not reported, and even when the resistance filmed their attacks the mainstream media (and even aljazeera) tried their best not to tell the truth about the number of dead Americans. As an example there was one attack where the Army of Rashideen themselves killed 4 Americans, but the western media and even alJazeera claimed that only 1 soldier was killed !!

The resistance groups such as the Army of Rashideen claim that over 30,000 American soldiers have actually been killed and they see the numbers given by the US Government as a joke. In their documentary film the Army of Rashideen put forward an intresting question. They asked Bush how is he going to cover up so many deaths ? They found this cover up very strange as the US is actually claiming the number of American soldiers killed to be less than 10% than what it really is.

So why is this happening ? And why also does the mainstream media seem to completely ignore Afghanistan and hardly ever report the American casualties there ? Many people in the west are actually under the impression that very little is going on in Afghanistan, this is while American soldiers themselves say that the war in Afghanistan is far more serious and far deadlier than the war in Iraq.

What's happening is again part of the conspiracy. The US Government would eventually have to report the true number of casualties, or at least they would have to reveal more than 10%, but they have planned to do this only after Sadr rises up. In other words they plan that when Sadr rises up they would suddenly claim that 20 or 30 thousand American troops have been killed - supposedly all of them by Sadr's "Mahdi Army". Then when people in the west hear of this there would be an uproar and bigger protests. Bush would then have an excuse to pull out of Iraq, making it seem as if Sadr and his Army have suddenly risen up and gained an amazing victory.

The US would then claim that those American soldiers who were really killed in Afghanistan were actually transfered to Iraq and were killed there by the "mahdi army" ! The tens of thousands of soldiers who have been killed by al-Qaeda, Ansar Sunnah, Army of Rashideen and other Sunni resistance groups would all be attributed to Sadr.

In other words the plan is that Sadr and his army would rise up after the defeat of the Sunni resistance. Then the western Media and the Governments would claim that the "Mahdi Army" have gained amazing victories and have killed thousands of American soldiers in a short while, when in reality there would be very little real fighting.

The US would then pull out of Iraq, supposedly defeated by the Moqtada al-Sadr.

However one thing happened which the US was not predicting, and that wasthat religious Sunni Muslims formed their own groups which turned out to be far more powerfull than Sadr's "Mahdi army", even though the "Mahdi army" had more members.

Ofcourse the US knew very well that Sunnis are going to rise up, what they didnt predict was that they would be so strong and would hold up such a great resistance.

At first the US just tried to destroy these Sunni "insurgents" but their own forces suffered instead. The conspirators who had planned these wars were now terrified because if these Sunnis managed to defeat the US then they would be seen as the heroes of Iraq and all their plans would be ruined.

So then we saw how the Government of Iraq was changed and made to look more religious and Shiah clerics were included in the Government. The New Iraqi Government then became popular among many Shiahs in Iraq and so more people joined the "Iraqi National Army".

Now the US forces didnt have to worry about the Sunni "insurgents" defeating them, because the National Army were there to take some of the casualties.

In order to encourage more people to join the National Army, the US and the New Iraqi Government bombed civilian areas, murdering men women and children, and then blaming it on the Sunni "insurgents", especially al-Qaeda.

However, even al-Qaeda denied these charges but ofcourse their voice is hardly ever heard. The Shiah clerics such as "Ayatullah" Ali Sistani and even the Iranian Government repeated the lie of the Americans and the New Iraqi Government, accusing so called "Sunni extremists" and al-Qaeda for these attacks on mosques and schools.

Sistani even went as far as calling upon his followers to join the National Army to fight the "terrorists" and so many more people joined the National Army seeking to take "revenge" from the Sunnis "insurgency".

Things were now going well for the conspirators, but the Sunni "insurgents" had taken over some of the key locations in Iraq including Fallujah.

The conspirators wanted to completely destroy the Sunni "insurgents" and they were not willing to take any chances so they bombed Fallujah and other areas controled by Sunni resistance groups without mercy. They even use illegal Chemical bombs including White Phosphorus. These bombs killed off entire peoples and compltely destroyed some areas. Thousands and thousands of Sunni civilians were killed in these bombings which were meant to completely finish off the Sunni resistance and give way to Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi army".

But instead of being annihilated, the "insurgents"/resistance simply went underground, as explained by the leader of Jaysh ar-Raashideen (one of the main resistance groups). He stated that afterwards the resistance became even stronged and harder to fight because now the US didnt know where they are while the resistance knew where the Americans are.

And so the Sunni resistance continued and Sadr was forced to tell his forces to stop fighting the Americans, and this is why: If you study what Moqtada al-Sadr has been doing, u will see that he has been constantly calling upon his followers to stop fighting the occupation. Every time his forces go into a battle with the Americans or the British or the Government, he immediately calls for a ceasefire.

Most of his followers have no idea what is going on. He is actually telling them to stop fighting because he wants the Americans to get rid of the Sunni resistance first. When their job is done, he is meant to come out and play the part of the hero.

However it was not enough for him to convince his followers not to fight the occupation, he even went as far as calling upon his followers to help the occupation!!! This he claimed was to fight against the "bigger enemy" which was al-Qaeda !!! This was because now the Government was handed over to religious Shiahs, so Sadr could claim that he is defending "Muslims" from "Nasibis" ("Nasibi" is a term Shiahs use against Sunnis whenever they want to fight against them).

The "Mahdi Army" then teamed up with the Iraqi National Army, fighting against the Sunni resistance groups !! They even protected the British forces in Basrah as reported by Peter Oborne in his documentary (Iraq Reckoning).

So what kind of "resistance force" are they ??? If you look at what these guys have been up to for the past 3 or 4 years, you will be amazed to see that the mainstream media still trie to portray them as an "insurgency" and how Moqtada al-Sadr still talks big as if he is USA's main enemy, when in reality he has been helping the occupation.

Strangely, Moqtada al-Sadr cant decide wether he supports the New Iraqi Government or not. One day he joins his forces with them, the next day he talks big about bringing down the Government.

The reason why he looks so st**id now is that he has been waiting for too long, and this is because the Americans have failed to destroy the Sunni resistance. He is meant to be an anti-Government anti-occupation religious hero, but his actions have proven the opposite.

He is still lying in wait for the time when his illuminati/Rosicrucian masters tell him to rise up against the occupation. Now that a religious Shiah government has been installed in Iraq part of the plan is already accomplished, except that the conspirators didnt want shiahs to look like American puppets, which is why they have kept Sadr.

But just incase the Sunni resistance continues to stand tall, they are going to have to stay content with a pro-American, yet "religious" Shiah Government (So long as Iran is allied to them, and so long as Iran is seen as a religious anti-American Government, the New Iraqi Government could also hope to be portrayed as anti-American one day. In other words they can later pretend to have sided with Iran rather than the USA, when in reality they have always been working with both Iran and the USA).

During the past few years many Sunni resistance groups have grown suspicious of Sadr. Some have even found proof that his men were working secretly with the Americans. No not just Al-Qaeda, but other Sunni resistance groups like Ansar-Sunnah and Jaysha Abi Bakr have arrested and executed close friends of Moqtada al-Sadr and high ranks in the "Mahdi Army", who were seen working closely with the Americans.

Also the leader of the Islamic Army of Iraq stated in an interview with al-Jazeera that the "Mahdi Army" should decide which side they are on (as they are sometimes working with the occupation).

The Ansar Sunnah also made a documentary film where they showed how the Americans attacked certain areas, destroyed every single household, except the Shiah ones.

In one particular village, there was one Shiah family living among many Sunni families. All Sunni families in that area were killed off by the Americans, but the Shiah family and their house were left untouched!! The Americans are obviously working for the same people who control Sadr, which is why they are ordered to destroy the Sunni population of Iraq thus increasing the Shiah percentage and thus giving the majority of Iraqis only two choices: New Iraqi Government or Sadr.

Recently Sadr has been trying to win over support by pretending to be a nationalist and thuse portraying himself as an opponent of Iran !!! Nothing can be further from the truth. Most if not all of Sadr's weapons have been given to him by Iran and infact Iran is even sending men to Iraq to join the "mahdi army" and also the pro-American "Badr brigade". The Sunni resistance group Ansar Sunnah even captured an Iranian member of Sadr's army after fighting and defeating a group of fighters from the "Mahdi army". The Iranian hostage had even been given equipment by Iran and was sent to Iraq by the Iranian Government itself.

As time is passing by the plans of the Kuffar are being exposed, because as Allah Subhana Ta'ala says:

"Although they plan, Allah also plans. And Allah is the Best of Planners." [Holy Qur'an 8:30]

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: No, the truth is something else. The US didnt invade Iran because they dont even want to invade Iran, and infact, as I have explained on another thread, Iran and USA are secretly working together: Now consider that the US and Iran are only pretending to be enemies and then we can think about the real reason why the US invaded Iraq.

 working together, pretenfing to be enemies

"The US didn't invade Iran" ??? of course they didn't, they haven't (as yet)

Long post & still no answer as to why invade iraq  well except oil

Angel wrote: Long post & still no answer as to why invade iraq  well except oil

Yes there is. I wrote:

"I have no doubt that Moqtada al-Sadr was meant to be the Nasrallah of Iraq. In other words, the plan was that he would rise up against the US, and the US would then leave all of a sudden. Sadr would then be seen as the hero and saviour of Iraq, and with Saddam gone, he would take over Iraq and eventually hand it over to Iran."

This is because they want to hand over the middle east to Iran, whom they control through their agents, the "ayatullahs".

For those of you who think Iran is a real enemy of the West, all you need to do is go to Iran and look around. You will see Israeli Zionist companies and products, including Coca Cola which "donates" 5 million dollars a year to Israel.

No, the real enemy of menkind is not Iran, is not the US ...

but infact is intolerance, money and missionary of all kind of religions or ideologies. Why it should be impossible that everybody lives his life in the way he want to live, and to realize that this freedom ends when touching the freedom of the next?   

Tell me please ... where is the problem that Zionists live their life? Are you afraid of Coca Cola? Nobody ask you to drink it. Btw... I do not know why Coca Cola should be in contact with Zionists, but that does not matter because everybody can decide for himselfe if drinking Coke or not. So please tell me where the problem is?

peace buisness ... hm... looking at the news of today from Bagdad, I would say worst. Think a lot of people in Germany are afraid of what`s going on in Iran, Irak, Afghanistan, but also Palestina, Israel, Lebanon, Dafur, Somalia .... Main problem is, to understand US hegemonial politics with a more or less silly leader is one side, but to understand the different parties involved like Sunits or Shiits, Hezsbollah etc ... is more or less impossible. Main risk I see today that "simple" answers are given and people happy with simple answers ... but it`s more complex.

And expenses of the Palestinian .... which Palestinian? Hamas or Fatach? Or odenary Palestinians? Think, this question is as well complex ... as most other questions and I for myselfe have to realize that politics of Israel is as worst as politics of Palestina and I`m not able to answer the question who`s wrong and who`s right. But one thing I know, it`s wrong to kill anybody, but both or more sides are just keeping on killing people ... so maybe each side is wrong.

 Yeah ... what to say ... In my point of view we have to come together to stop killing, to have a world wide disarmemend and to learn toleranz and ... may be the main point to learn that each men or women has equal rigths to live, to love and to believe, whatever they want to believe.

 I red your HP .. and would say, best regards to you

Peter

 "Gates: Bombs tie Iran to Iraq extremists "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates

------------------------------------------------------------ ------

See how the Western Government's are delibrately trying to portray Iran as helping the Iraqi resistance when in reality Iran is helping the Occupation forces and the puppet Government.

Anyone who has independently researched the situation in Iraq would know that Iran is arming, funding and morally supporting the puppet Government as well as the Shia Death Squads, especially the Badr Brigade.

These Death squads do NOT fight the occupation, and what they actually do is kill Religious Sunni Muslims (especially the resistance) so they are actually helping the occupation, at least indirectly.

There have ofcourse also been cases where these death squads have fought hand in hand along with the US forces against the Sunni "insurgency".

But every once in a while we see western politicians including Bush accusing Iran of helping the insurgents/resistance. They are trying to decieve us, as I already explained.

Ofcourse the mainstream Media would have us believe that the reason why politicians are accusing Iran is so that the US would have an excuse to invade Iran. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

The US is also delibrately accusing Iran of making WMDs, which may be true, but they are only saying this because they know that after what happened in Iraq, no one would believe the same accusation made against Iran.  In other words what they are actually doing is that they are making excuses to NOT invade Iran, without people becoming suspicious.

USA and Iran = Two sides of the same coin

Assalamu 'alaykum wa Rahmatullah

I already explained on my first post on this thread.

 The original plan was for Sadr to take over, the back up plan is a (supposedly) "religious" New Iraqi Government which would (despite being "religious") be on the American side.

 The new Iraqi Government became "religious" because the Americans were being defeated by the "insurgency" and needed more help. Since most Iraqis are Shiahs the new Iraqi Government (which is mainly Shiah) was made to appear more religious so that:

1: More people would join the National Army

2: Sadr could side with the National Army and the Government whenever needed, saying "Im helping our Shiah brothers to fight the evil Nasibis (Sunnis)".

As long as the Sunni insurgency/resistance remains strong, the original plan cannot be implemented. The conspirators prefer the original plan ofcourse, but their back up plan can go back to the original if they manage to destroy the Sunni resistance.

This is why to this day Sadr Still pretends to oppose the Government, even though sometimes he sides with them and sends his militia to defend the Government !!!

He is still pretending to oppose them at times because if the Americans and their allies succeed in destroying the Sunni resistance, he can rise up and carry out the original plan.

This is also why George Bush refuses to set a date for US to pull out of Iraq. Bush constantly says that he is going to stay until they win - in reality he wants to stay until they Lose (to Sadr) but they dont know when they are going to go through with the plan as they do not know when (or even if) they would succeed in defeating the Sunni resistance.

 Hence it is impossible for the conspirators to set a date for pulling out of Iraq, as they want to make it seem like the US forces were suddenly defeated by Sadr.

But if the US is finally forced to leave Iraq (by Really being defeated), or if Sadr's militias are destroyed or seriously weakened by Sunni forces, then they would have no choice but to continue with the back up plan.

And the back up plan is that the New Iraqi Government would continue working for the US, but later, shortly after the Americans leave Iraq, they would side with Iran and appear to become anti-American (they may then claim that they worked with the US due to "political reasons" and that they always opposed them but pretended to be on their side for the "greater good").

Then the New Iraqi Government would join Iran, and Iran would send their army to Iraq to destroy the remaining Sunni resistance.

The back up plan is ofcourse far less convincing and is not helpful in giving Shiahs a heroic face. The original plan is tried and tested in Lebanon where it seems to work well.

Insha'allah, both plans will fail.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/burned-alive-savage-twist-in-revenge-attack/2006/11/25/1164341452050.html?from=rss - http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/burned-alive-savage-twis t-in-revenge-attack/2006/11/25/1164341452050.html?from=rss

Steven Hurst, Baghdad
November 26, 2006

REVENGE-seeking militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left prayers and burned them alive with kerosene in a savage new twist to the brutality shaking Baghdad.

The attack in the Iraqi capital on Friday came a day after suspected Sunni insurgents killed more than 200 people in Baghdad's main Shiite district.

Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mehdi Army militia, said police Captain Jamil Hussein.

He said in subsequent attacks at least 19 other Sunnis were killed, including women and children, in the same area, the volatile Hurriyah district in north-west Baghdad.

Most of the thousands of dead bodies that have been found dumped across Baghdad and other cities in central Iraq in recent months have been of victims who were tortured and then shot to death, according to police.

The suspected militia killers often have used electric drills on their captives' bodies before killing them. The bodies are frequently decapitated.

But burning victims alive introduced a new method of brutality that was likely to be reciprocated by the other sect as the Shiites and Sunnis continue killing one another in unprecedented numbers.

The gruesome attack, which came despite a curfew in Baghdad, capped a day in which at least 87 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence throughout Iraq.

In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Captain Hussein said.

Residents of the troubled district claim the Mehdi Army has begun kidnapping and holding Sunni hostages to use in ritual slaughter at the funerals of Shiite victims of Baghdad's raging sectarian war.

President Jalal Talabani emerged from lengthy meetings with other Iraqi leaders yesterday and said the Defence Minister, Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi, indicated that the Hurriyah neighbourhood had been quiet throughout the day.

But Imad al-Hasimi, a Sunni elder in Hurriyah, confirmed Captain Hussein's account of the immolations. He told Al-Arabiya television he saw people who were drenched in kerosene and then set afire, burning to death before his eyes.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni organisation in Iraq, said even more victims were burned to death in attacks on the four mosques.

It claimed a total of 18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque.

The extreme violence continued to tear at Iraq's social fabric even after the Government had banned pedestrians and cars from the streets and closed the international airport until further notice in anticipation of a storm of retaliation for the five bombings and two mortar rounds, which killed 215 in Sadr City on Thursday.

The airport closure forced Mr Talabani to delay his planned weekend departure for Tehran for meetings with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian leader also invited Syrian President Bashar Assad, but it now appeared he would not attend.

The chaos also cast a shadow over the Amman, Jordan, summit this week between Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and US President George Bush.

Politicians loyal to radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened to boycott parliament and the cabinet if Mr Maliki went ahead with the meeting.

The political bloc, known as Sadrists, is a mainstay of support for Mr Maliki. The Mehdi Army is the organisation's armed wing.

In Sadr City, cleanup crews continued removing the remains of the dead from wreckage of the car bombs, and tents were erected throughout the ramshackle district for relatives to receive condolences.

Hundreds of men, women and children beat their chests, chanted and cried as they walked beside vehicles carrying the caskets of their loved ones toward the holy Shiite city of Najaf for burial.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------

As you can see, the New Iraqi Government try to defend Sadr (their supposed "enemy") by denying that anything had happened:

" Defence Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi indicated the Hurriyah neighbourhood had been quiet throughout the day."

This is because in reality, the puppet Government and Sadr are on the same side.

Intrestingly, the Americans also confirmed what the Defence Minister of the New Iraqi Government said ! (So the Americans are also trying to cover up Sadr's crimes against Sunni civilians).

No surprise here as the Western Media as a whole did their best not to report any of the attrocities committed by Sadr and the Death squads during the first few years of the war.

What most people do not know is that the Sunni resistance only fought back and reacted against the Shiah allies of the US, after the horrific attrocities committed by the National Army, the Death Squads and "Mahdi army" against Sunni civilians.

The Western Media managed to make things seem the other way around by portraying the Shiah death squads as a reaction to Sunni "terrorism"!

Even today the mainstream media report as little as possible about the death squads and what little they report is due to the fact that numerous independent reporters have already reported it (as the death squads are very well known and their attrocities very often seen in Iraq) and it is impossible now for the mainstream media to remain completely silent over this issue, so they make a little mention of it once in a while.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Again, the same old rubbish "Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents".

"President Bush said Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq"

Yeah right! Intrestingly he then said that he is NOT going to attack Iran !

Then.... why did he make this accusation to begin with ?? This is while it is a CLEAR fact that Iran is actually allied to the "new iraqi government" and HELPING the occupation by sending Shiah Death Squads such as the "Badr brigades" to Iraq to KILL the "insurgents", rather than "help" them.

The only supposed "insurgent/resistance" group that Iran funds and arms is the "Mahdi Army" who have been seen HELPING THE OCCUPATION and fighting against Real resistance groups.

What the conspirators are trying to do is to make Iran popular among anti-american Muslims as I've already explained on this and other threads. This is all part of the original and back-up plan which I've already mentioned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

"WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq."

Oh...so Bush "cant" invade Iran ... he really really wants to... but he just cant...

I guess the Freemasonic American Government is just "too good" to let Bush invade Iran... so we have the good old American Government on one side, and Bush on the other...

But seriously this is again part of their plan. It's a long story but at the end of the day they want to blame everything on Bush and the Republicans, and then say it's ok for Iran and the Liberal party of the US to be allies because the Liberals were the "good guys"!!!

(This is the last part of their plan and is to happen long after the take over of Iraq by Iran.)

Al Sadr Fled Iraq, Fearing U.S. Bombs

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953 - http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953

------------------------------------------------------------ ---

So why did he leave Iraq? The above links says because he was scared of US forces. The truth however is that Sadr left Iraq as soon as the Sunni Resistance intensified their attacks against Sadr's so called "Mahdi army".

The Sunnis in Iraq have formed what they call The Islamic State of Iraq which consists of some of the strongest Sunni (including Salafi) resistance groups who are trying to take over Iraq.

Shortly before Sadr left Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq reported that they had killed over 1500 members of Sadr's "Mahdi Army" within less than 2 months !!!

Then what happens ? Bush sends 21000 more troops to Iraq and Sadr leaves Iraq for Iran.

What really happened was that Sadr's forces were being defeated by Sunni forces, and as I have explained, Sadr's army is the most important part of this whole Illuminati/rosicrucian conspiracy.

So just as Sadr's forces were suffering heavy casualties, the US sent 21000 more troops to take their place. As I have already explained, Sadr's forces have been helping the occupation by fighting against the Sunni resistance. Without them the Sunni resistance would have a much easier time against the US and the puppet "New Iraqi Government".

So Sadr was losing and wanted to stop fighting as he feared his forces may be destroyed and he himself may soon be killed so the USA (his secret ally) sent 21000 more troops to fill in for him.

In other words, the reason why Bush sent these troops to Iraq (despite all the controversy) was to protect Sadr's forces and save them from the Sunni Resistance, particularly the Islamic State of Iraq.

When Sadr left Iraq, fleeing from the Sunni resistance, the Media tried to make it seem as if he was escaping from US forces, thus continuing to portray him as USA's enemy.

Intrestingly, Sadr who helped the invasion by fighting against the Sunni resistance, and who even protected occupation forces in Basrah, is now being protected by the QUDS force (who are a group in Iran controled by Khamenehi leader of Iran).

This is while Bush claimed that the Quds force are "arming the insurgency in Iraq" !!!

So who were the Quds force of Iran really arming ?

They were arming Sadr.

And what was Sadr doing?

He was helping the occupation!

 This proves what I said on my earlier posts on this thread (that Iran is not really helping the Resistance but are infact helping the occupation - not to mention the Death squads).

The face of hypocrasy

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: Bizzarrreeeeeee

Sawtul, All your logics and evidences are against your conclusions. Isnt it weird !!! Recycle your brain please. I mean your thought process.........

Can you tell, where the sunnis & Al-Qaida in Iraq gets their supplies? Why they have no complains against Iran?

Salam

QUOTE=nu001]

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: Bizzarrreeeeeee

Please dont misquote.

nu001 wrote: Can you tell, where the sunnis & Al-Qaida in Iraq gets their supplies? Why they have no complains against Iran?

1: They make some of them themselves (especially the explosives)

2: Saddam allowed Weapons to be sold in Iraq before the invasion.

3: Iraq's military bases were raided by those who later formed the resistance groups

4: They take their enemies weapons from them after killing them (war booty).

The one place where they DONT get weapons from is Iran.

And you say they have no complains about Iran ??? Dont talk about things you dont know. Read this :

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html

Hizbullah chief http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Hassan Nasrallah has been branded a "worshipper of idols, an agent of the anti-Christ," and "charlatan" by Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir in a statement made earlier this month, the full text of which has now become available. The message, which also contained threats to blow up the White House, forms another escalation in al-Qaeda's increasingly hostile anti-Iranian rhetoric, that has also targeted http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Hizbullah . Discussing the actions of US President Bush, Muhajir said in the statement, released by al-Qaeda's al-Furqan Foundation, translated into English by the Al-Boraq Workshop, and reproduced on the Jihad http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - unspun website:

"He (Bush) turned to the Sham ( http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Syria and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - Lebanon ) and terrorized its tyrant (Basher Assad), who is a Rafidi (Shiite) and a Nusayri (one of Shiite's factions). The blockade continued until he (Assad) had to open his country to hundreds and thousands of Persians to acquire citizenship in it, (so the they can) support the charlatan agent of the anti-Christ, Nasr Allat (a common nickname for Hizbullah's Nasrallah, and meaning a supporter and worshipper of Idols) who is called Nasrallah..."

"Hence, the Old Persian Empire has become complete, extending from the countries behind the river, Iran and Iraq� to the Sham (Syria and Lebanon)," Muhajir said.

The al-Qaeda leader said the United States had become an agent for Iran. "I wonder whether the wise of Romans (Americans) realize that they have become slaves and mercenaries for Persia, and that they are fighting Persia's battles for free," he said.

On November 17, Sunni al-Qaeda followers in Lebanon released a statement on the internet calling on Lebanese Sunnis to prepare for an imminent confrontation http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - .

According to the SITE Institute http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330633,00.html//ln - , a website which monitors Islamist web activity, the statement also said:"Let the Rafidi (Shiites) know that we are ready to fight them with Allah's help and let it be a war. We are more eager for it than they." Islamic State declared in Iraq

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda in Iraq has declared the establishment of a Caliphate (Islamic State), in anticipation of the withdrawal of US troops from the region.

-----------------------------------------------------

I think this is proof enough that al-Qaeda are against Iran. Also I explained that there are other groups in Iraq who are also against Iran on my earlier posts, such as ANSAR SUNNAH, ARMY OF ABU BAKR, ARMY OF RASHIDEEN and other Sunni resistance groups.

Everything I say can be proven, wether you believe or not.

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: 1: They make some of them themselves (especially the explosives) 2: Saddam allowed Weapons to be sold in Iraq before the invasion. 3: Iraq's military bases were raided by those who later formed the resistance groups 4: They take their enemies weapons from them after killing them (war booty). Everything I say can be proven, wether you believe or not.

Do you think they can fight on booty & hand made explosives? They are loosing more than they are getting. They need a factory for amunition & small arms. They must have some external source for buying & shipping it. Which is only possible through Iran/syria; Unless US army supplies them from Saudi/Kuwait or in Iraq.

Your ref is a third party quote. Al Qaida accused All Saudi/Pak/Egypt/Jordan etc many times in their tapes and web sites.

Salam

nu001 wrote: Al Qaida accused All Saudi/Pak/Egypt/Jordan etc many times in their tapes and web sites.

What's your point ??? All of these Governements are allied to the United States and Iran.

nu001 wrote: Do you think they can fight on booty & hand made explosives? They are loosing more than they are getting. They need a factory for amunition & small arms. They must have some external source for buying & shipping it. Which is only possible through Iran/syria; Unless US army supplies them from Saudi/Kuwait or in Iraq.

I didnt say just booty and hand made, they also use the weapons left over from Saddam's regime. It is also a fact that they make explosives and many of them have even filmed themselves while doing so. I dont know why you try to imply as if I only mentioned 2 sources while I actually mentioned 4.

This is Ala al-Maliki, a close friend of Muqtada al-Sadr and member of "Mahdi Army" who was arrested and executed by the Sunni Kurdish group called Ansar Sunnah.

Ansar Sunnah claim that he was secretly working with the Americans and assassinating Sunni resistance leaders with their help !

This is just more evidence that the so called "Mahdi Army", the supposed "Shiah Resistance" armed and funded by Iran is in reality working with the Occupation forces.

So again, it is not just al-Qaeda who have found evidence, many other groups have also concluded that the "Shia resistance" armed and funded by Iran and the "Quds force" are imposters who are helping the occupation.

And here are a few interesting pictures that confirm what I said about Sadr being the Nasrallah of Iraq:

(Nasrallah is also an imposter, read : http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007&PN=10&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007& ;PN=10&TPN=1  )

.:: SoHaIB ::. wrote: I didn't read all that man cuz we all know America attacked Iraq just for oil

?????

Sawtul Khilafah wrote:  The original plan was for Sadr to take over, the back up plan is a (supposedly) "religious" New Iraqi Government which would (despite being "religious") be on the American side.  The new Iraqi Government became "religious" because the Americans were being defeated by the "insurgency" and needed more help. Since most Iraqis are Shiahs the new Iraqi Government (which is mainly Shiah) was made to appear more religious so that: 1: More people would join the National Army 2: Sadr could side with the National Army and the Government whenever needed, saying "Im helping our Shiah brothers to fight the evil Nasibis (Sunnis)". As long as the Sunni insurgency/resistance remains strong, the original plan cannot be implemented. The conspirators prefer the original plan ofcourse, but their back up plan can go back to the original if they manage to destroy the Sunni resistance. This is why to this day Sadr Still pretends to oppose the Government, even though sometimes he sides with them and sends his militia to defend the Government !!! He is still pretending to oppose them at times because if the Americans and their allies succeed in destroying the Sunni resistance, he can rise up and carry out the original plan. This is also why George Bush refuses to set a date for US to pull out of Iraq. Bush constantly says that he is going to stay until they win - in reality he wants to stay until they Lose (to Sadr) but they dont know when they are going to go through with the plan as they do not know when (or even if) they would succeed in defeating the Sunni resistance.  Hence it is impossible for the conspirators to set a date for pulling out of Iraq, as they want to make it seem like the US forces were suddenly defeated by Sadr. But if the US is finally forced to leave Iraq (by Really being defeated), or if Sadr's militias are destroyed or seriously weakened by Sunni forces, then they would have no choice but to continue with the back up plan. And the back up plan is that the New Iraqi Government would continue working for the US, but later, shortly after the Americans leave Iraq, they would side with Iran and appear to become anti-American (they may then claim that they worked with the US due to "political reasons" and that they always opposed them but pretended to be on their side for the "greater good"). Then the New Iraqi Government would join Iran, and Iran would send their army to Iraq to destroy the remaining Sunni resistance. The back up plan is ofcourse far less convincing and is not helpful in giving Shiahs a heroic face. The original plan is tried and tested in Lebanon where it seems to work well. Insha'allah, both plans will fail.

Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And if the disbelievers gain success, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?

So Allah shall Judge between you on the day of resurrection, and Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.

(Qur'an: Surah Nisa: 141)

ALLAHU AKBAR

These are exactly the two things planned by Iran today.

Those who wait = Moqtada al-Sadr and his so called "Mahdi Army" who are WAITING and not fighting the occupation, while claiming to support the resistance.

If the Iraqi Sunni Resistance succeeds, they plan to say "were we not with not with you?" (They will say they were part of the resistance).

Doesn't make sense, How can you say that it's Iran and not SA, Egypt, Jordan or you?

At the moment; there is all the reason to believe that Iran is on the right side.

Others (SA, Egypt, Jordan etc) are openly on US side. So There is no chance to be on the right side, if you are with them.

nu001 wrote: Doesn't make sense, How can you say that it's Iran and not SA, Egypt, Jordan or you? At the moment; there is all the reason to believe that Iran is on the right side. Others (SA, Egypt, Jordan etc) are openly on US side. So There is no chance to be on the right side, if you are with them.

Who said anything about supporting Saudi Arabia and Egypt or Jordan. Incase you didnt know, Iran is allied to these countries, so I dont know why you imply that these are two different sides.

And also, the Ayah applies to Sadr's so called "Mahdi Army" because it mentions the HYPOCRITES who seem like they want to fight and do Jihad, but they dont and instead they "wait". This is EXACTLY what Sadr has been doing.

The Ayah also says that these people would be helping the Kuffar and protecting them, and again as I have explained on my earlier posts, the "mahdi army" have been protecting occupation forces in Basrah and stabbing the Sunni resistance in the back.

Here is a video of Sadr where he confesses that his forces are to fight alongside the National Guards and Police force of the "new iraqi government" (which is set up, trained and funded by US forces):

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpTjJs7n0Rw

Daniel Dworsky wrote: Hallooo Germany!!! The 'problem' is when Zionism comes at the expense of the Palestinian people. Israel is nice but I think that after the war we should have gotten a nice chunk (if not all) of the Rhineland. Cheap shot - I know. I'm just teasing! Hows the peace business going?

Hiel Bush...

Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

Here is more confirmation of what I've been saying on this thread:

http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=245 - http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=245

Here are some key points in this article:

wrote: As splintered political factions, such as the Sadrists, seek to form a new coalition made up of Sunni parties, formerly exiled Shiite groups like Da'wa and the SIIC are facing new challenges in maintaining a dominant political bloc in Baghdad. Moqtada al-Sadr's call to create a "reform and reconciliation project," which would also include Sunnis, is a radical departure from his sectarian base which was formed with the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) and under the spiritual leadership of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2004

Notice it says Sadr wants to include Sunnis in the Government if he gains power in Iraq. Remember that I said that Sadr is there to decieve and fool the Sunni Muslims by becoming the "saviour" of Iraq.

wrote: On entering Iraq after more than 20 years of exile in Iran in 2003, al-Hakim witnessed the rise of a major Shiite political rival, a young cleric named Moqtada al-Sadr, who would publicly question his bravery and Iraqi credentials for not only failing to stand up to Saddam, but also for being a foreign agent backed by the Iranian government.

But now Sadr is trying to pretend to be a "nationalist" and even an opponent of Iran!!! Even though it is a proven fact that Sadr has been armed and funded by the Iranian Government.

 Sadr is trying to appear as a nationalist since many Iraqis have realised that Iran has been helping the Occupation forces by sending death squads such as the Badr brigade to Iraq and by openly supporting the New Iraqi Government that was made by the United States.

So why is Iran funding and supporting both the "Mahdi army" led by Muqtada al-Sadr, AND the new Iraqi Government and its death squads including the Badr brigade???

The reason is given by Allah in the holy Qur'an:

Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And if the disbelievers gain success, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?

So Allah shall Judge between you on the day of resurrection, and Allah will by no means give the unbelievers a way against the believers.

(Qur'an: Surah Nisa: 141)

Allah tells us that the Monafiqeen (hypocrites) have TWO plans:

1: Those who wait for (some misfortune to befall) you then If you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you?

2:And if the disbelievers gain success, they say: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?

The Iranian Government are Monafiq (hypocrites) and that is why they have EXACTLY the two plans - which is why they are supporting both Sadr and the "New Iraqi Government".

If the resistance win, Sadr is going to come up and claim that he was part of the resistance and helping the Sunnis, so that he can gain power and decieve the true Muslims (Sunnis). He would call for "unity" and claim he has nothing against Sunnis (even though his group have been assassinating Sunni Mujahideen and even secretly helping the occupation as I've proven on my earlier posts on this thread.

And if the Occupation forces manage to destroy the Sunni resistance now, the New Iraqi Govenment and Badr brigade will continue ruling over Iraq and Sadr would then say to them: Did we not acquire the mastery over you and defend you from the believers?  (Remember that as Ive mentioned on my first post on this thread, it was reported that Sadrs' forces were DEFENDING occupation forces in southern Iraq from the Sunni resistance!!!).

Remember that both Sadr and the new Iraqi Govenment are Shiahs. They have the same ideology as Iran, they are both supported, funded and armed by Iran. The reason why they seem to have very different plans is that Iran is trying to create a win-win situation so that if the resistance are defeated, Shiahs would control Iraq, and if the resistance win, again Shiahs would take over Iraq (both Shiah groups having the same ideology as the Shiah Iranian Government!)

So these are their two plans. These two plans are the plans of the Monafiqeen, the hypocrites. These are the two plans of the Iranian Government and the Illuminatiwho control the Shiah Mullahs.

The original plan was that there would be absolutely no significant Sunni resistance. This plan failed due to Sunni and Salafi groups such as Tawhid Wal-Jihad, Islamic Army of Iraq and Ansar Sunnah.

When this happened, the planners (Iran, USA, France and other Illuminati Governments) had two choices left... and those are the two I've mentioned above (which Allah subahana Ta'ala foretold in the holy Qur'an).

Duende wrote: It�s easy to cave in to Sawtul�s hate-filled conspiracy theories.

When I say something will happen and it happens, it's no longer a "conspiracy theory", it's a conspiracy Fact (remember the "hezbullah or hezbushaytan?" thread).

Duende wrote: Even I can see he has a point referring to Iran as the Monafiq, but it would be very short sighted indeed to assume that all Shia were driven by some inexplicable desire to unite with Iran. To believe the similarity of ideology makes for some Pan-Arab Shia nation is politically na�ve.

I didnt say all Shias, but these famous Shia groups that are being funded by Iran ("Hezbullah" "Mahdi Army" and "Badr brigade"). It's obvious that groups who are being funded and armed by Iran and some of whose members are Iranians are willing to unite with Iran. It's common sense.

Duende wrote: It�s at times like these the spectre of Sawtul�s early lies about his provenance and whereabouts add to the confusion:

I Never lied to anyone, but I delibrately didnt fill in my profile properly as I didnt want to be identified (as I've already explained so many times before).

Duende wrote: And if he�s Iranian why does he show such ignorance of the myriad political manouvers behind the scenes? What does he know of the Hawza?

I know about the Hawzas of Iran/Qum and Iraq but I simply dont think that America's invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the minor differences between the Hawzas. 

Duende wrote: Sadr is more politically motivated than religious. He is not as highly regarded in this sphere as Sistani, about whom we hear nothing from Sawtul and his anti-Shia ravings.

Read my first post on this thread, I DID write about Sistani!

Duende wrote: There is no way America is in �secret� collusion with Iran, who see (rightly so) The Great Satan as its enduring enemy, and the Little Satan (the UK) as its historical enemy. They do not want to see either manifestations of evil on their doorstep, neither do they want to see any hand maidens of the Satan in charge of Iraq. America is the far greater hypocrites, simply biding time before they put in place their preference: Alawi, who will happily oversee the so-called hydrocarbon law everything hinges on.

  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8744&PN=3 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8744& ; ;PN=3  (Iran's reverse psychology) and http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924&PN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924& ; ;PN=2  

As for Allawi, he's long gone and I've explained the reason on the first post on this thread. When the Sunni resistance appeared Sadr had to stay back and when the Occupation forces and puppet Government were in trouble, they needed Sadr's help and in order for Sadr to have an excuse to help them they had to replace Allawi with "religious" Shias. But both the "religious" and Allawi are puppets/agents of the Occupation forces and wouldnt last a day without their protection and funding.

Duende wrote:  There has never been any plan, guided by Iluminati or involving French governments or anybody else. What�s going on now was impossible to plan,

Incase you didnt read my posts, I said their original plan FAILED, though they are still trying to go for a similar plan which is for Sadr to unite with Sunni resistance groups (and since Sadr has a huge army, which were left unharmed by the occupation, he would eventually take over Iraq when the occupation forces leave, if the Sunni resistance foolishly agree to unite with him).

Bismillahirrahmaanerraheem

According to Abu Omar Baghdadi, the leader of one of the biggest anti-occupation Jihadist groups in Iraq, some of the insurgents (mainly the nationalists and those who have good relations with puppet Arab Governments) have agreed to change sides and actually help the occupation forces and their allies fight the Sunni "extremists", and in return the Americans have promised to help them fight the Shiah "Mahdi Army" of Moqtada al-Sadr.

This is very interseting for two reasons. First of all, this shows that the Americans have so far pretty much avoided fighting the "Mahdi Army"... which confirms what I've been saying on this and other threads (despite the "Mahdi Army" being portrayed as an actual resistance group).

Secondly, this shows that they are actually trying to go back to the original plan which I mentioned on my first post on this thread.

They have told these Sunni insurgents (who are mainly Baathists and nationalists) that if they help America destroy the religious groups (such as al-Qaeda and Ansaar Sunnah) then the Americans would help them fight the Shia "Mahdi Army".

I believe the Occupation forces are actually trying to decieve these insurgents, as this is starting to sound a lot like what I predicted on this thread.

Let's see what happens if the plan works. First, the religious Sunni groups would be destroyed. Then the Americans and those Iraqi insurgents who helped them would team up against the "Mahdi Army"...

Then... as I explained on my first post on this thread, the Americans would have a fake short war with the "Mahdi Army" and other Shias in which they would be "defeated" and would leave Iraq, portraying Sadr and his "Mahdi Army" as the victors and saviours of Iraq.

By then, the Sunni groups would have been divided into two groups:

1) The religious (who by then would be destroyed, so they would not be seen as the defeaters of the occupation)

2) The nationalists (who having joined the occupation, would be seen as traitors and agents of the occupation, so they certainly wont be seen as the victors).

So at that point, the only group that could take credit for "defeating the occupation" would be Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army".

As I explained in great detail on my first post on this thread, the original plan was that there would be no significant Sunni resistance.

When this plan failed after the rise of nearly 10 powerful Sunni groups, they decided to destroy them and then have the fake war with the "Mahdi Army". This plan didnt go very well either.

So now they have come up with a new plan which in the end would give the same results they were hoping to get at the beginning of this war, by taking advantage of the rising enmity between the Sunni Nationalists and Sunni Islamists.

Tom123 wrote:      LOL!!! The Americans invaded Iraq to make Sadr look good- and the Israelis invaded Lebanon to help Hizbullah- BRILLIANT!!!!    You should seriously consider publishing this in MAD magazine or some other similar source! The Mahdi Army is not 'pro-American' and the Hizbullah is not 'pro-Israeli'. The fact is Shia Muslim fighters have inflicted more casualties on Israeli and American invading forces in the Middle East than anyone else. Many Sunni armed groups (like Ansar Al Sunnah or Al Qaeda in Iraq) hate the Jaish Al Mahdi because they are Shias and they see the Shia as heretics.    I am not btw a supporter of either the Mahdi Army or Hizbullah or Sunni Iraqi resistance groups, or the American and Iraqi puppet government forces they are battling (when they are not fighting each other). I believe as a Christian that all war and violence today is against Christ's teachings and therefore I am opposed to it. So I am not 'defending' Sadr or Hizballah- like the people they are fighting they too have blood of the innocent on their hands.    However, I believe that to accuse Hizballah or Jaish Al Mahdi of being pro-US or pro-Israeli governments is absurd.

They only pretend to be against the US and Israel, I explained why here:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924&PN=1&TPN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924& ;PN=1&TPN=2

Sawtul Khilafah wrote:   As you may well know, the Western Governments have always been planning against Muslim countries, they created Israel and are now making war after war. They knew very well that Muslims will want to fight back and they wont just sit there while all this was going on, so they came up with a very clever plan, which was to create forces around whom religious Muslims and those who want to do something about these wars would gather. They knew that so long as they control the leaders of these groups/Governments, they would not Truely harm them in any way and would only carry out limited attacks and just use words and words and words the rest of the time to fool people into thinking that they are serious, while in reality these fakes would actually be helping the West and actually fighting against the real enemies of the Western occupation by simply accusing any real group that does not join them of being "agents of the west" or "agents of Israel". However, this could only succeed through Shiism as it is they who believe in Taqlid (blinding obeying their scholars) so this plan could only work well on the Shiahs (also because Shiism is closely linked to western secret societies :  http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9460&PN=3 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9460& ; ;PN=3 ) Therefor, they first tried to portray Sunnis as pathetic, careless cowards and in order to do this they gave power to those in Sunni countries who were willing to openly obey the western Superpowers. It was then that they created their fake Islamic Government in Iran and the so called "Hezbollah". Iran and "Hezbollah" have helped increase the popularity and conversion to Shiism and Iran has been publishing hundreds if not thousands of books propagating Shiism. In these books you will often see that they claim that Shiism is "heroic" while Sunnis are "Pathetic" and if anyone wants to be on the "heroes" side they would have to become Shiahs (the "victory" of "Hezbollah" in 1982 was meant to portray Shiism as just that - also Iran in 1979 became the only "Islamic fundementalist" country in the world, thus Shiism became the hope for those Muslims who cared about their Ummah.) After 1982, the "Hezbollah" did very little (practically nothing) except propagate Shiism and promote themselves as the "heroic saviours of Islam", however after so many years it was required to once again remind people of the supposed "heorism" of the Shiah "Hezbollah" so then there was this recent war, the outcome of which I actually predicted during the early days of the war!!! Here's the link: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007&PN=16&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007& ; ;PN=16&TPN=1 If you look at Sadr and "Hezbollah", one thing that they have in common is that they love "ceasefires" or "peace negotiations". Now there is nothing wrong with making peace....but making peace in the middle of a war and while the occupation still continues simply does not make sense, but all FAKE groups do that. They first rise up and become popular, once enough people have joined and have become very famous they suddenly sit back and relax!! On the other hand when you look at REAL resistance groups, such as the Chechen Mujahideen and the Sunni resistance groups in Iraq (examples: Ansar Sunnah, Tawhid wal-Jihad, Jayshal Islami fel Iraq) they continue to fight so long as there is war and occupation, killing thousands of enemy soldiers and themselves losing many of their men and leaders. They continue to fight until they either win, or lose, something that imposters would not do because they dont want to win (they dont want to destroy their masters) and they dont want to lose (they are not willing to sacrifice their lives and obviously if they are destroyed the whole plan would be ruined). Also read my post on this link (the long one with the picture, scroll down): http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6007& ; ;PN=16&TPN=12

Now as you may know, Iran supports, funds and arms both the "Mahdi army" and the "Hezbollah". Hasan Nasrollah leader of "Hezbollah" even said "We are Iran" (meaning they are a part of Iran).

Of course Iran also claims greatly to oppose the US and Israel and even calls the USA "The Great Satan"!

Now, if you think Im a "conspiracy theorist" read the following:

Or it could be said that the drama started in 1981, just after Reagan came into office, when U.S. officials learned that Israel was ignoring the 1979 American ban on the sale of arms to Iran. At the time Iran badly needed spare parts for the American-made weapons it had acquired during the Shah�s reign. In their hour of need the Iranians looked to Israel, which had also supplied weapons to the Shah.
The Israelis reportedly set up Swiss bank accounts to handle the financial end of the deals. Despite its embargo, the U.S. appeared to look the other way. Administration officials seemed interested in Israel�s notion that the arms sales would help foster ties with leaders in the Iranian military�
�In late August, Israel sent a planeload of arms to Iran. The cargo consisted mostly of Soviet-made weapons that the Israelis had captured in Lebanon�
In the fall of 1985 Iran was presumably making payments to Israel through the Swiss bank accounts set up to handle Israeli-Iranian arms sales in the early 1980s. At the same time, Israel was demanding that the U.S. replace the items that had been taken from Israeli stockpiles and sold to the Iranians. But Washington reportedly grew suspicious about the finances. In asking for fresh weapons, Israeli officials claimed that they could not pay full price, but Washington suspected that Iran was paying the Israeli dealers far more than the arms were actually worth. The U.S. urged Israeli officials to drop the arms merchants from the Iran deal and allow Jerusalem to take over the operation�
Israel sold Iran $12 million worth of weapons at a price that included a markup as high as 250%, or $42 million�

Source: TIME Magazine Article, ( http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir861208.html - http://www.time.com/time/europe/tim...n/ir861208.html )
TIME Archives:
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,963021,00.html - http://www.time.com/time/archive/pr...,963021,00.html
time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,963021,00.h tml
------------------------------------------------------
Reagan would wait and disclose his intentions in private. So it was with the disputed decision in August 1985 to condone arms sales by Israel to Iran. �He called and said, �I think we ought to get on with that. Let�s go ahead with that,� McFarlane told the commission.
Source: MSNBC Article,
( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5165237/site/newsweek/ - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5165237/site/newsweek/ )
------------------------------------------------
The book �The Iran Contra Connection� discusses the relationship between Iran and Israel:
The Israeli Interest in Iran
� Though Israel, along with the United States, suffered a grievous loss with the fall of the Shah, its leaders concluded that lasting geo-political interests would eventually triumph over religious ideology and produce an accommodation between Tel Aviv and Tehran. The onset of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 gave Israeli leaders a special incentive to keep their door open to the Islamic rulers in Iran: the two non-Arab countries now shared a common Arab enemy. As Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post in May 1982, justifying Israeli arms sales to Tehran, ��we hope that diplomatic relations between us and Iran will be renewed as in the past.� Four months later he told a Paris press conference, �Israel has a vital interest in the continuing of the war in the Persian Gulf, and in Iran�s victory.� Such views were not Sharon�s alone; Prime Ministers Itzhak Shamir (Likud) and Shimon Peres (Labor) shared them too�
The Arms Channel Opens
Israel lost no time supplying the new Khomeini regime with small quantities of arms, even after the seizure of the U.S. embassy. The first sales included spare parts for U.S.-made F-4 Phantom jets; a later deal in October 1980 included parts for U.S.-made tanks�
Notes Ha�aretz correspondent Yo�av Karny �The cloak of secrecy that surrounds Israeli arms exports is so tight that one can compare it to the technique for smuggling hard drugs.� When caught in the act, Israeli officials maintained they were simply selling domestic arms, not embargoed U.S. weapons. �Whenever we would get word of shipments,� one American official explained, �the State Department would raise the issue with Israel, and we would get the standard lecture and promises that there were no U.S. weapons involved.�
�[The Israelis] signed a deal with Iran�s Ministry of National Defense to sell $135,842,000 worth of arms, including Lance missiles, Copperhead shells and Hawk missiles�
In November 1981, Israeli Defense Minister Sharon visited Washington, shopping for approval of similar arms sales [to Iran]. His U S. counterpart Caspar Weinberger, flatly turned him down. Sharon then went to Haig, hoping for acquiescence from the State Department. Again, McFarlane handled many of the discussions with Sharon and Kimche; this time Haig unequivocally opposed any violation of the embargo.
Yet as in 1979-80, Israel pursued its policy anyway, in flat violation of its arms re-export agreements with the Pentagon. In a May 1982 interview with the Washington Post, Sharon claimed that Israeli shipments had been cleared �with our American colleagues� months earlier and that details of all the shipments were supplied to the administration. Later that year, Israel�s ambassador Moshe Arens declared that Israel�s arms sales were cleared at �almost the highest levels� in Washington�
And those shipments would continue to be enormous in size, estimated by experts at the Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv at $500 million in value from 1980-83. Other arms market experts have put the total value at more than $500 million a year, including aircraft parts, artillery and ammunition.
(Source: p.169, �Irangate: The Israel Connection� excerpted from the book The Iran Contra Connection by Johnathan Marshall and Peter Dale Scott, South End Press, 1987, paper)
----------------------------------------------
After the Revolution, Iranians continued to buy arms from the United States using Israeli, European, and Latin American intermediaries to place orders, despite the official United States embargo. Israeli sales, for example, were recorded as early as 1979. On several occasions, attempted arms sales to Iran have been thwarted by law enforcement operations or broker-initiated leaks. One operation set up by the United States Department of Justice foiled the shipment of more than US$2 billion of United States weapons to Iran from Israel and other foreign countries. The material included 18 F-4 fighter-bombers, 46 skyhawk fighter-bombers, and nearly 4,000 missiles. But while the department of Justice was attempting to prevent arms sales to Iran, senior officials in the administration of President Ronald Reagan admitted that 2,008 TOW missiles and 235 parts kits for Hawk missiles had been sent to Iran via Israel.
Despite official denials, it is believed that Israel has been a supplier of weapons and spare parts for Iran�s American-made arsenal. Reports indicate that an initial order for 250 retread tires for F-4 Phantom jets was delivered in 1979 for about US$27 million. Since that time, unverified reports have alleged that Israel agreed to sell Iran Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, radar equipment, mortar and machinegun ammunition, field telephones, M-60 tank engines and artillery shells, and spare parts for C-130 transport planes
Source: Global Security Article ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/intro.htm - http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit.../iran/intro.htm )

Wait a minute, are you actually implying that they got rid of the Shah and replaced him with Khomeini just to stop Iran from prospering financially??? Since the Shah was openly their ally, surely they could have made more money with him around than the supposed anti-American anti-West Khomeini.

I agree that things are more complicated than they seem, but it's certainly not all about money.

Today, on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol declared that the U.S. was close to victory in the Iraq war, arguing that the only concern left for the U.S is dealing with alleged Iranian involvement in Iraq:

"We're winning in Iraq. That is the absolute crucial precondition to having success in the broader fight against Islamic jihadism.  And I think we are going to have to be serious about dealing with both their intervention in Iraq which is now the only real threat, I think, incidentally, to relative success in Iraq and their nuclear program."

As you can see they are actually trying to change history. I mentioned numerous other examples on my earlier posts such as my post at the buttom of this page: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411& ;PN=1&TPN=1

Duende, here's CFR coming to Iran's rescue!!! http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_200_dollar_oil_if_war_with_iran_says_cfr_pres.htm - http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_200_dollar_oil_if_ war_with_iran_says_cfr_pres.htm

Kissinger did the same: http://darulislam.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3244 - http://darulislam.info/forum/showthread.php?t=3244

The same people who control the Neo-Cons are trying to turn people against a future war on Iran... !!! I explained why here: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8924& ;PN=1&TPN=1

I'm actually way ahead of you (just because I dont talk about something doesnt mean I dont know about them). The CFR, the UN, the US Government and Israel, as well as Iran, Russia and France are all on the same side.

It's like a game of chess, one side plays the black the other the white, and we are just pawns in their game until and unless we find out what's really going on (that's why I concern my posts with revealing their biggest secrets such as the real reason why they invaded Iraq and the real motives of Iran and "Hezbollah")

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: All Sunni families in that area were killed off by the Americans, but the Shiah family and their house were left untouched!!

Im sorry I made a mistake here, the documentary actually says the "Mahdi army" were the ones who carried out the massacre rather than the Americans.

Now after a long time the US media and certain people in the Government are starting to reveal this conspiracy that I wrote about.... BUT in a misleading way.

New reports claim British and American forces are in south Iraq and are actually taking part in the fight against the "Mahdi Army".

This is from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7360875.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7360875.stm

Let me just comment on some of the things the BBC says:

US and UK special forces are carrying out operations in Basra in southern Iraq against Shia militiamen, a Western military source has told the BBC. The aim is to detain senior figures in the Mehdi Army and other Shia militias, and members of a local tribe.

So their aim is just to arrest them? I thought they were supposed to be fighting.

At that time, the BBC understands that 550 US troops embedded with the Iraqi army also joined in the battle.

Remember when it was reported that American troops are not taking part in the battle? Now they claim that they are!!! Secretly!

This video from the BBC also makes this claim that the British and American soldiers have covertly taken part in the fighting without anyone knowing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm

Remember before they claimed the reason why Americans and British forces are not taking part in the fighting was that they didnt want to "inflame the situation", but now they say they are taking part in the fighting but secretly... my question is, if it's a secret then WHY ARE THEY REVEALING IT??? Wouldn't that "inflame the situation"???

The truth is as originally reported, British and American troops are NOT fighting the "Mahdi Army", they first made the excuse that they dont want to "inflame the situation", now they make the excuse that they are fighting covertly.

You may ask, if they want to decieve us why dont they just lie and claim they are fighting normally?

Well because then the ordinary people in Iraq and independent journalists would know that this is not true and they could be exposed real soon.

So since American and British soldiers are nowhere to be seen in the streets they make excuses like "we dont want to inflame the situation", or "we are there but covertly and secretly" (as if they would reveal their own secrets).

The operation was criticised by US commanders as poorly planned and as failing to achieve its stated aims.

Yes it was poorly planned, even an idiot would know that sending the Iraqi Army alone to fight the Shia militias is pointless.

Going back to this video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7361730.stm notice the BBC report that military sources (in other words commanders working directly for the US Government) "revealed" this secret (either these are the st**idest commanders in the world as they revealed secrets that they claim would harm them, or they actually gave false information to the BBC to decieve viewers into thinking that the USA and Mahdi Army are fighting eachother).

The video also shows Iraqi soldiers handing over weapons to the "Mahdi Army" (I posted a picture of it on my last post).

But the FUNNIEST part of the video is the end where an Iraqi Soldier who refused to fight the "Mahdi Army" says "I dont want to fight Iraqis or Muslims".

WHAAAAAAAT??!!! LOL!!! What has he been doing all this time?? The Iraqi Army do nothing BUT fight Muslims and Iraqis, there is no one else to fight since they never fight the Americans and are trained and armed by them and are under their command.

So why did this guy join the Army if he didn't want to fight Iraqis??? What nonsesne.

He obviously didn't want to fight the "Mahdi Army" and MOST LIKELY the New Iraqi Government itself secretly told the soldiers not to fight because the New Iraqi Government is mainly controled by the "Badr Brigade" and many soldiers in the Iraqi Army are from the "Badr Brigade" and the "Badr Brigade" is directly controled by Iran as is the "Mahdi Army".

So it's very obvious that he is lying and that he didn't fight because he was ordered not to by agents of the Iranian Government who also control the "Mahdi Army".

After reading this thread, it appears many readers are not well informed of the origins and beliefs of the Shia sect. May I take this an opportunity to recommend all readers to read about the Shi'a on the following very informative site:

LOL one minute you guys try to convince someone that Im an agent and the next minute your accusing that same person of also being an agent for not believing you! What a Joke!

Seeing how nu001 is not only repeating everything Whisper had said in the exact same way (without looking at the evidence but just repeatedly accusing) it's obvious that if anyone has invented a supporter it is Whisper.

Before brother truthseeker other members like sign reader and a few others agreed with me regarding Iran.

If you go to Islamicawakening.com and Domain of Islam and many other Forums you will find many members who agree with me.

By the way I forgot to mention this, but I actually predicted the events happening in southern Iraq 2 months before it happened:

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: The next president is determined not by the votes but by what happens in the Iraq war.   The original plan for Iraq was for Bush to lose to Sadr, if they want to continue with that the next president would have to be a neo-conservative (or it should happen within the next few months) but since the plan has been failing and they dont want the Sunni fundementalists to be seen as the victors they will have to stop the war as a "merciful" act of a democratic president.   I think Iran will eventually move their forces to Iraq especially if and when Obama pulls the troops out, in order to prevent the Sunnis from taking over.

Sawtul Khilafah,

As I have no doubt only partly understood, you have argued that Barak Obama is the Illuminati�s candidate of choice for US president.  In this recently published statement, that candidate seems to agree with one of your contentions -not that Tehran is secretly taking its directives from Tel Aviv, mind you, but- that the Iranian hand has been strengthened by the Bush Doctrine (Iraq Occupation).  Mr. Obama says:   

"They've [Bush and McCain] got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush's policies," He said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3544244,00.html

It is no big secret that the Bush Doctrine in action, thus far, absent an entirely possible "preemptive strike" against Iran in future, has in some ways strengthened Iran.  The issue is much discussed.  Vali Nasr, in his book The Shia Revival, says that:  

�During a visit to the United States in September 2005, a frustrated and uncharacteristically blunt Prince Saud al-Faysal, Saudi Arabia�s foreign minister and the son of King Faysal, told his American audience that the potential for disintegration of Iraq was real and that that would �bring other countries in the region into the conflict.�  Leaving little doubt as to who Saudi Arabia considered to be its greatest rival in that conflict, he chided the United States, saying that �we Saudi Arabia and the US fought a war together to keep Iran out of Iraq after Iraq was driven out of Kuwait.  Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason.� 

Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0-393-06211-3, p. 242

I am still, from this thread, and if by now primarily as a courtesy, trying to understand your position:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10189&KW=Nasr - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10189&KW=Nasr

I wonder if you could kindly sum up, in a sentence or two, and without sending me off to sift through clues, the �real reason why the US invaded Iraq.�  What, in your opinion, was that reason, in a nut-shell?

Thank you,

Serv

Sawtul Khilafah wrote: ... I then went on to explain that they [mainstream media and Obama supporters] want us to think that IRAN tricked the USA into invading Iraq!!  Now Obama seems to be implying the same thing ...

I must respectfully disagree.  In his statement (to which I provided a link),  I don�t hear Mr. Obama implying anything of the sort.  He is simply stating what plenty of people and potential voters know: that President Bush�s foreign policy in the Middle Eastern region has thus far, whether wittingly or unwittingly, in some ways strengthened Iran�s hand.

I appreciate the remainder of your post, even if I take issue with most of it.  Perhaps it would be best, assuming that we do proceed, to take things a step (or point) at a time.

Best regards,

Sawtul Khilafah,

You wrote:  �... I then went on to explain that they [mainstream media and Obama supporters] want us to think that IRAN tricked the USA into invading Iraq!!  Now Obama seems to be implying the same thing ...�

I wrote:  �I must respectfully disagree � I don�t hear Mr. Obama implying anything of the sort �.

You wrote: �Well my point is that Obama is not saying what Im saying �

Ok.  Let�s start over, from the top.  Where, through what published or broadcast statements of his (or are we to use some other method of divination?), has Mr. Obama suggested that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq?

Serv

Dear Agent Sawtul Khalifa,

What I said on my faith, both my statements are correct.

You havn't yet given the proof of your claim that, many people in other forum agrees with you on this topic. Means you lied.

You are a Jew / Christian / whatever, that doesn't matter to me. But muslims, don't accept such falsehood that you preach. Muslims need convincing proof, which you have failed to deliver. lying, false allegation, creating division, confusion etc these are act of satan only. better abstain from it in this forum.

Sawtul Khilafah,

I asked: �Where, through what published or broadcast statements of his (or are we to use some other method of divination?), has Mr. Obama suggested that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq?�

You had previously written: �I actually warned about this [some time ago here: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8411&PN=5  I showed that the mainstream media (the same people who support Obama) have started to reveal this conspiracy that I wrote about.... BUT in a misleading way. I then went on to explain that they want us to think that IRAN tricked the USA into invading Iraq!!  Now Obama seems to be implying the same thing...�

I followed your link (back to page 5).  It also took me to Comedy Central.  That was a relief, if only a comedic one.  I notice, incidentally, that you twice identify �interviewer� Jon Stewart as Jewish.  I wonder.  Does this somehow preclude him from being a proper comedian?  If so, and if Jews can�t be comedians, then please explain Sophie Tucker or Jerry Seinfeld.

I�m just joking.  That was my attempt at schtick.

But seriously.   I was unable to watch the interview (because I usually post from public library computers which disallow video, unfortunately at times for me, please note Sign-Reader) but did search the interviewed subject, journalist Aram Roston.  I read one of his articles published in the more credible, if Leftist, The Nation (link provided below), and do not read where at any point Mr. Roston is ever either confused concerning Ahmad Chalabi�s nationality or mistakes the �I� in Chalabi�s �INC,� or Iraqi National Congress, for Iran.  I presume that your sending us to the Comedy Central is your proof of the �misleading way� but, though I try, I still fail to see how Mr. Obama is saying, suggesting, or even seemingly implying that Iran tricked the USA into invading Iraq.

Best regards,

Serv

Ref:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston

SK,

You wrote:  �His [Obama�s] supporters say Iran tricked the USA into going to war ��

Where have his supporters said this?  Are you referring to Jon Stewart and Comedy Central?

You wrote:  �Regarding Jon Stewart, I only said he is Jewish ONCE, not twice. However I copied and pasted my post again later, maybe that's why you think I said it twice.�

Yes, for some strange reason, it was probably because you repeated yourself, by copying and pasting your statement, that I thought you twice identified Jon Stewart as Jewish.

Serv