Was exiled in Iraq for many years, which expelled him. Then spent less than four months in France.
Of course major zionist and US collaborators will get executed after a Revolution. Compared to other Revolutions though, the Iranian one led to far fewer executions.
Nonsense. Iran did not "arm" any Iraqi militants in the immediate aftermath of the Islamic Revolution. That's a pure fabrication.
What Iran did though, was to execute Habibollah Elghanian, the main zionist ringleader in Iran and head of the infamous Zeytoun network, an Isra"el"i influence operation in Iran.
What Iran also did right away, was to invite Yasser Arafat to Tehran and replace the zionist diplomatic mission by a Palestinian one.
What led to war between Iran and Iraq was Saddam's belief that Iran being caught in revolutionary turmoil represented an opportunity for him to grab oil-rich Iranian lands of Khuzestan. This was an openly stated objective.
What? There was no "stampede" in Mecca in 1979 or 1980, this happened in 2015 and most of its victims were Iranian pilgrims.
Also, no "war" was triggered with Saudi Arabia. The latter, on the other hand, decided to finance Saddam's illegal invasion of Iran.
The Northern Alliance took shape in 1996. In other words, 8 years after the demise of Imam Khomeini (rahmatAllah alayha).
When where "thousands of Taliban prisoners massacred by the Hazaras"? More freestyle fabrication on the go by someone who obviously does not master the topics they are commenting on.
Also, there is no such thing as "the Hazaras" as a monolithic political organization. Hazaras are a so-called ethnic community. Only racists incriminate ethnic, national or racial communities as a whole and without distinction. Which, needless to say, stands in stark contrast to Islamic principles.
No Arab nation tried, because no Arab nation came to adopt the asymmetric thinking developed by Iran after 1979. And most of all, most Arab countries are US allies. Hence the quoted point is totally moot.
The few Arab nations that did in fact continue to oppose the US after the collapse of the USSR, namely Iraq, Syria and Libya, did not follow an Iranian-style defensive doctrine.
Moroever, none of them is endowed with certain assets Iran enjoys. Such as:
- A population of 80 million.
- A cohesive national community with unexploitable division lines.
- A geographic position atop the jugular vein of global energy supplies.
- A network of regional allies across the region.
- A latent nuclear weapons capability.
These all explain why the US felt it could afford the costs of invading Iraq and Libya and destabilizing Syria, but not Iran.
Iraq was backed by the west and western client regimes in its war of aggression against Iran. As well as by the entire Soviet bloc. Its war effort completely financed by PGCC monarchies. It was a western and eastern proxy war on Iran.
The reality is those powers want to destroy Iran but have so far miserably failed. The reality is they have tried to enroll Arab states, Turkey and Pakistan to this effect, with varying success - thank God, not all Muslim leaders in neighboring countries are stupid enough to fall for this.
Iran is at war with the zio-American empire. Arab states are US allies, Turkey is a NATO member. If the US does not mean well, first thing they should do is to rescind their alliance with Washington. Which Iran would actually welcome with utmost joy.
Iran has not threatened any of these.
Iran and the US are enemies, fought a direct war in 1988. Iranian assets blew up Marine barracks in 1983 in Lebanon. Iran supplied Iraqi guerillas to eliminate 600+ US occupation troops in the 2000's.
The US and Turkey on the other hand are military allies in the framework of NATO. The US and practically every Arab state are allies.
Iran does not enjoy Russian "military protection", but is a partner on equal footing to Moscow in Syria. In Iraq, Russia has no military presence, while the US has consistently been at loggerheads with Iran there.
Iran's aim is to oust zio-American imperialists from the region and empower Muslims of every denomination, including its Sunni Muslim brothers.
The Taliban and Iran have established a working relationship. Also, the Taliban have zero bearing on developments in the Arab world.
There's nothing "odd" about it. Iran can pummel the zionist entity into dust with its conventional means alone.
But we also get gazillions of reports on the actual conflict opposing the two sides.
On assassinations of Iranian political and military leaders, as well as the killings of Iranian scientists.
On the zio-American propaganda campaign against Iran, which is the most massive of its kind in the entire history of mankind, with 80 to 90 satellite zio-American backed, Persian-language broadcasters calling for regime change 24/7, not to mention the incomparable amounts of anti-Iran propaganda the internet is being flooded with, including by the empire's sectarianist and takfiri useful idiots.
On the stringent sanctions slapped on Iran, which currently have no equivalent anywhere.
On the proxy wars fought by Iran and the zio-American empire in various theaters across the region.
No, it isn't. Iran never sought to impose any sort of religious beliefs on anyone anywhere in the world.
On the contrary, it willingly cooperated and selflessly lent its support to its Sunni Muslim brothers in various places such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Palestine, Kurdish regions of Iraq, Afghanistan. Absolutely no religious types of conditions were placed on this aid.
No, the west does not "praise" Shia Islam anymore than it praises Sunni Islam.
Jalaleddin Rumi was a Hanafi Sunni. Again, the quoted user's ignorance of basic historic facts comes smacking readers with full force.
This would be a lie. Imam Khomeini (rahmatAllah alayha) did not "call himself" Ruhollah, his parents did. Ruhollah is a common first name in Iran.
Example: the famous Iranian composer Ruhollah Khaleghi.
en.wikipedia.org
As for the "nabiAllah esa" title, never heard of it. Don't even know what it is supposed to mean. Chances are that no evidence is going to be provided here either.
Substantiate this assertion with evidence. Because it's nonsense, and no valid evidence will be provided, this much I can predict. Behold everyone.
Most Muslims are not going to let themselves get fooled by hollow assertions with zero evidence to back them up. They require proof. Attempts to dumb them down in order to implement sectarianist agendas which solely play into the hands of zionist and US imperialists will miserably fail as they have failed to this day.
Yeah, which is why the Taliban just asked the US to extend its diplomatic presence in Afghanistan.
- - - - - -
Go ahead and elighten us as to who the alternative candidates would be. Don't play silly.
Either way, my point stands: Iran and the US do have a history of direct military confrontation, which is what the discussion was all about.
Iranian dipomats in Erbil were abducted by the US military and mistreated. Fact.
Iran and the US did fight a war in 1988 in the Persian Gulf. Fact.
The US regime did down an Iranian civilian airliner. Fact. And no, it was no "accident".
Kindly stop trying to hijack the discussion.
foreignpolicy.com
politicstoday.org
www.voanews.com
