Mediation Between Saudi and Iran Going Slowly

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

You will never change your mind. All you ever do is come out here and propagate on the zio axis's behalf. I can see by the flags where your allegiance is , so why dont u man up and admit it.

You are accusing a respectable Palestinian brother of being a Zionist.

You may have disagreements brothers, but please keep some decorum on the forum.

@Falcon29 You too brother. Mods have difficult time as it is.

 

[Falcon29]

Why dont you spread ur stench on another country's thread? isnt there a kuwaiti/ Emirati thread? i dont even know which country's flag that is. How about where US imperials spread their stench? you never post anything Pro muslim or anti zio on any thread. You sneak up like a stink bomb and spread ur stench among the supporters of Anti Zio resistance. No one from the Iranians likes your views here and thats the unfortunate truth. Spread ur stench sumwhere where its befitting. This is where the supporters of the axis of resistance gather,its not a suitable place for stink bombs mate

Lol, you want to be enemy of Arabs and don't want them to give you taste of your medicine back. Typical Iranian hypocrite.

 

[Xerxes22]

You are accusing a respectable Palestinian brother of being a Zionist.

You may have disagreements brothers, but please keep some decorum on the forum.

@Falcon29 You too brother. Mods have difficult time as it is.

Alright Brother.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Alright Brother.

Good decision, brother. Thanks.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Out of all pro-Iranian members, we have some real strange ones here on PDF. Alt-right, Communist, pro-Russian, Orthodox, Arabist (Syrian-Iraq) propaganda lives on portraying the Sunni Muslim majority as evil, wicked, and dangerous people, for which Iran is a convenient ally, due to Shia identity.

I don't think that every non-Iranian who supports Iran is doing so either out of sheer islamophobia or out of hatred for Sunni Muslims. Such people certainly exist but in my experience most non-Iranians sympathetic to Iran owe their positioning to anti-imperialist / anti-US / anti-zionist beliefs of different strands. Which is not contemptible in itself.

I do not condone Sineva's choice of words concerning Pakistan, however I will also not hide the fact that I harbor unfavorable views towards continued relations with the US, let alone on a near-strategic level.

Since you thanked several of Falcon29's posts where he tries to portray the conflict between Iran and the zio-Americans as "fake" (not a new discourse really), I suppose you will not adhere to my outlook on Iran either, since contrary to him, I certainly do not consider their dispute to be imaginary.

As a matter of fact, I would say that this whole idea that Iran is not interested in resisting the zio-American empire and instead seeks to subvert the Muslim world out of purported "islamophobia" is completely delirioous and in many places dishonest. I'd elaborate and counter each of Falcon29's ramblings with great ease if I had more time on my hands, but I also have more important matters to attend to.

However I am certain (unlike you, I assume) that the key to improved Pakistan-Iran relations is to take further distance from Washington including on the official and diplomatic levels. Because I believe Iranian opposition to the zio-American empire to be genuine. While the harmful direct and indirect consequences incurred by Pakistan due to its relations with the zionist-controlled US regime should be clear to us all. Anything Pakistan gained from its relationship with Washington it could have achieved on its own provided the necessary political will.

Now Iranian resistance against the zio-Americans, along with their efforts toward industrial, agricultural and technological self sufficiency (which actually go hand in hand) are two things every Muslim nation including Pakistan, whatever their positions on other issues, would gain in taking inspiration from. And that in turn would go a long way bringing Iran closer to them in view of forming a strong Islamic block of nations.

 

[Falcon29]

I don't think that every non-Iranian who supports Iran is doing so either out of sheer islamophobia or out of hatred for Sunni Muslims. Such people certainly exist but in my experience most non-Iranians sympathetic to Iran owe their positioning to anti-imperialist / anti-US / anti-zionist beliefs of different strands. Which is not contemptible in itself.

I do not condone Sineva's choice of words concerning Pakistan, however I will also not hide the fact that I harbor unfavorable views towards continued relations with the US, let alone on a near-strategic level.

Since you thanked several of Falcon29's posts where he tries to portray the conflict between Iran and the zio-Americans as "fake" (not a new discourse really), I suppose you will not adhere to my outlook on Iran either, since contrary to him, I certainly do not consider their dispute to be imaginary.

As a matter of fact, I would say that this whole idea that Iran is not interested in resisting the zio-American empire and instead seeks to subvert the Muslim world out of purported "islamophobia" is completely delirioous and in many places dishonest. I'd elaborate and counter each of Falcon29's ramblings with great ease if I had more time on my hands, but I also have more important matters to attend to.

However I am certain (unlike you, I assume) that the key to improved Pakistan-Iran relations is to take further distance from Washington including on the official and diplomatic levels. Because I believe Iranian opposition to the zio-American empire to be genuine. While the harmful direct and indirect consequences incurred by Pakistan due to its relations with the zionist-controlled US regime should be clear to us all. Anything Pakistan gained from its relationship with Washington it could have achieved on its own provided the necessary political will.

Now Iranian resistance against the zio-Americans, along with their efforts toward industrial, agricultural and technological self sufficiency (which actually go hand in hand) are two things every Muslim nation including Pakistan, whatever their positions on other issues, would gain in taking inspiration from. And that in turn would go a long way bringing Iran closer to them in view of forming a strong Islamic block of nations.

Iran advances it's national interests and you call that opposition to Zio-American empire. Any other Muslim country advance their national interests and it's just normal business to you. Can you tell us why Iran didn't do anything when it's general was killed by so called American empire?

Also apparently in your world only Iran is working towards technological, agricultural, and industrial sufficiency. You are desperately trying to assert Iran as leader of Muslim world because they produce some tech(nothing specific you mention ) according to you. And you want other Muslim nations to look up to them on that basis.

Why should any Muslim nations take your so called resistance seriously when your own people on this forum say it's too costly to get into war with Israel(same thing Arab rulers say but only Arab rulers considered vassal states and zionists by you guys) ? Did your Iran ever get into one war with Israel? Arab states got in multiple wars with Israel but none of them asking Muslim world to follow them or insinuating they are superior and need to be followed like you are doing with Iran.

So you first need to show us what this resistance you are talking about since in 40 years of your resistance revolution you didn't attack US or Israel. But Pakistani pilots actually fought in Arab - Israeli wars.

 

[SalarHaqq]

I have also seen a disturbing trend among Shia leaders and Iranian/Assad rhetoric against Sunnis and Salafis as takfiris (ones who declare others kaffir.) This term also should be banned from the forum.

Iranian officials and Assad did not label every Sunni as a takfiri. They are referring to certain terrorist groups. You might disagree with the notion that said groups are takfiri or terrorist, but that doesn't mean Iranian or Syrian authorities have been talking about Sunnis in general - they didn't.

I do not agree with some of the things brother @Falcon29 had said in the past, but he has been banned for those remarks and did his time.

Are you suggesting that people learn to put up with his offenses simply because he did the same in the past and was already banned for it several times? Don't you think it's nobody's fault but his own if he cannot get himself to conform to a set of simple rules?

If we silence the last prominent Arab voice on this forum, it would be a tremendous injustice. The Arab view will be anti-Iranian, and sometimes anti-Turkish too, but we cannot silence the viewpoints of those we disagree with.

If there was no reason to report some of the statements he issues, other than one's disagreement with them, then you'd certainly be right. But if he is effectively violating forum rules, then the total number of Arab users posting here should not be a criterion for holding back from reporting his infractions.

I would request brother @Falcon29 to make extra effort to try to even avoid using the word Shia, if at all possible, as Pakistanis are sensitive to our demographic weakness to sectarianism.

Two other things you ought to ask him to stop are:

1) His random, delirious attributions of ethnicity and religious beliefs to anyone who disagrees with his opinions.

2) More importantly, his regular use of takfir against Muslims (both against users of this forum and political figures). Do you agree with his assessment that Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader are, I quote "atheists or Zoroastrians"? Do you agree with him when he claims "you guys" (meaning: Iranian forum users) are "Zoroastrians" despite the fact that there are obviously several Muslim Iranian users here as well?

If, say, an Iranian was to repeatedly direct similar drivel against Pakistani leaders and forum users, I think you would not be happy at all and you'd probably report them and ask others to do the same - even if the culprit was the last remaining user from Iran. Am I not right?

At least since returning from his latest ban, Falcon29 has not yet insulted Pakistani women (sisters, I believe it was). Nor has he yet repeated his threats to chop people's heads off, like he did against user Hack-Hook, accusing the latter of "worshipping an Iranian civilization god" (which is totally laughable to anyone familiar with Iranian politics and with Hack-Hook's opinions, since the latter is a liberal person supportive of the globalist agenda whose ultimate goal it is to fusion all nations into a unitary one-world government, something Hack-Hook will probably deny but globalism is what it is - now how can a person with such political positions be accused of being an "ultra nationalist deifing his nation"? Terrible and sad at the same time).

These sorts of threats can be construed as criminal offenses in most jurisdictions, mind you, and could get their authors into legal trouble. Which is why I insist he needs to indulge in some serious self reflection for his own good.

 

[Xerxes22]

Hahahaha Iran never fought a war with US/ISRAEL. But Kuwaiti and Qatari Backed and Bin salman Funded forces of Hezbollah routed the Isrealis in 2006 war. Hezbollah was ofcourse created and armed by the great Kuwaitis and Qataris. Hassan Nasrallah is a lover of his Highness Bin Salman. Also it was not IRAN but the Kuwaitis and the Dubai ppl who attacked the US military base with Hellfire Missile from American Imported Fighter Jets at the start of this year. I swear on no one and nothing that this is wat took place.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Iran advances it's national interests and you call that opposition to Zio-American empire.

Yes absolutely, I call this opposition to the zio-American empire. And you know why? Because any leadership truly acting in its nation's interests will try and resist the zio-American world order. Given that said world order aims to suppress every nation and every religion by fusioning them into a unitary one-world government, in conformity with the principles of freemasonry and zionism. So in this day and age the future of nations and religions is intertwined to a considerable degree, contrary to what you appear to assume, because both are facing a common, monstrous antagonist which is hell bent on subverting and destroying them all in order to assert its totalitarian domination over mankind... or should I rather say, over the uber- and the unter-mensch of the future because the human species as we know it is scheduled by the global oligarchy to disappear and make way for one superior and one inferior species - hence all the talk about transhumanism on the one hand, and about human-animal genetic hybrids on the other.

Thus anyone like Iran whose interests seriously clash with those of the US and Isra"el" has a good grasp of what its objectively defined interests really are. Those who get along with Tel Aviv and Washington on the other hand haven't fully understood what their own interest consists of.

These are topics you should spend some time studying, rather than cultivating some sort of obsessive fixation on Iran as the purported "supreme evil" facing Muslims. There are far bigger players in this world, far more powerful entities than Iran (yet none of them is all powerful despite what their promothean beliefs lead them to imagine, Allah swt will not permit them to succeed). And if you seriously believe these entities harbor no ill will against Islam and all other traditions for that matter... well, you will be wrong. The more one delves into these topics, the more one will realize what's actually going on beneath the surface and what those in charge at the global scale do not want you to focus on.

The problem is that most governments are not acting in their people's, nations and traditional religion's interests. Because they are not even willing or ready to name and identify the overarching enemy of all nations and of all religions, the incarnation of evil on earth. In part because they lack the required courage, in part because they are corrupted and compromised themselves.

Now you claim Iran is not "doing anything" against that global cabal? To which I shall respond, Iran already has denounced the enemy and is calling it by its name. You might counter that "rhetoric alone is of no use", yet in reality that's a hugely important step in and by itself. Practically no other government has dared to do this. Try issuing as a head of state some of the statements Ahmadinejad made on certain topics relative to the foundations of the post-WW2 order and see what happens.

You will not be able to resist and pull down the devil if you're not even aware of its identity and plans. You shall be utterly powerless if you do not prepare people's minds first. Plus, today as in the past the information war, the media war is absolutely crucial to any confrontation. Therefore one cannot simply dismiss this.

But Iran has achieved far more than that in the 41 years since the Islamic Revolution.

Any other Muslim country advance their national interests and it's just normal business to you.

No they don't. If they did, they'd join Iran in forming a strong anti-zionist block (or start their own) because they too are on the common enemy's death list and will disappear in a couple of generations from now if the enemy gets its way. But the thing is, most of the ruling class elites in most countries of the world are compromised, bought or subjugated by the global zionist oligarchy. As was Iran's very own ruling class prior to the 1979 Revolution, dominated by zionists, freemasons, members of the Haifan Bahai organization and Anglo-American agents of influence.

Can you tell us why Iran didn't do anything when it's general was killed by so called American empire?

Why do you think they did nothing? I can name:

- The possible suppression of CIA special operative Mike D'Andrea over Afghanistan. Sure, you will dismiss reports to that effect as "Iranian propaganda" despite the fact that the original sources were not Iranian but Russian and despite the fact the the CIA refrained from denying it. But neither will you be able to prove thoes sources wrong.

- The missile attack on the Ayn al-Assad base. No, Iran did not warn the US 7 hours beforehand as you claimed in another thread, Iran out of respect for Iraq's sovereignty informed Baghdad and far less than 7 hours before the operation. Additionally, several US troops were suspiciously reported as having died in "accidents" in places like Germany or Korea shortly after the attack, who is to say the US regime, known for its endless lies, has not been covering up actual deaths among its troops?

- Ongoing rocket strikes on US installations, the burning of several US supply convoys, manportable SAM attack against a US Chinook helicopter by pro-Iranian groups in Iraq. Before asserting that these attacks resulted in little to no casualties, be reminded of your own listing of Hamas rocket launches on Isra"el" during the year 2019 I believe it was, most of which did not cause any casualties or even any material damage either. So why would you accept said rocket attacks by Hamas as legitimate acts of resistance but dismiss similar ones by pro-Iranian forces as a farce?

Secondly, I will respond by saying that this is far from over. Put yourself in Iran's shoes: which would be more rational, a massive strike resulting in dozens or hundreds of US casualties and possibly inviting all out aggression by Washington given that the circumstances would have allowed the US regimes to proceed with it, or protracted smaller scale operations following the asymmetric guerilla logic?

Let's not forget, for all its brazeness, the operation against Soleimani fell short of filling the criteria of a fully fledged declaration of war. If the US openly used its air force to bomb Iran, do you really believe Iran would sit idle? If invaded by the US, you think Iran would not fight back?

When Iran was at war in the 1980's, pro-Iranian elements in Lebanon blew up the US Marine barracks killing 241 American troops in a single operation. I saw how you claimed that operation had "nothing to do with Iran", well, that's simply false as it had everything to do with Iran and I invite you to read a book or two mentioning the event. The individuals who planned and carried out the operation were from a group backed by Iran, with links to what would later turn into Hezbollah. The father of the young Lebanese who drove the truck filled with explosives into the barracks told Said Qasemi, a prominent former IRGC commander, that his son drew his inspiration from Hossein Fahmideh, an Iranian youth who became famous during the liberation of Khorramshahr in southwestern Iran for sacrificing himself so his comrades could advance by crawling beneath an Iraqi tank and igniting his hand grenade.

So how come that to you, when Hezbollah resists US or zionist occupation of their lands, it is totally "unrelated" to Iran but when Ansarallah fights back Saudi troops entering Yemen, that all of a sudden ampounts to "Iran intending to wage war on Saudi Arabia"? On several occasions you claimed just as much, which reflects crass double standards and a lack of soundness. I'll remind everyone that out of all Iranian allies, Hezbollah is closest and most strongly linked to Iran in every aspect (it is the only allied group, along perhaps with some smaller Iraqi ones, to pledge allegiance to Ayatollah Khamenei as a spiritual-political leader, it has been the beneficiary of the most generous Iranian aid etc). Hence if anyone is claiming Houthis in Yemen are militarily backed by Iran, they will certainly not be able to pretend Hezbollah is not.

The same Said Qasemi, by the way, was at the forefront of Iran's massive support for Bosnian Sunni Muslims during the civil war raging in that country during the 1990's. No other country came to the aid of Bosnian Muslims as rapidly and as comprehensively as Iran. A brigade of the Bosnian army was entirely set up, equipped and trained by Iran. Several Iranians were martyred at the hands of Serbian and Croatian formations. Bosnian president Alija Izetbegovic later publicly thanked Iran for its flawless support. This is all publicly available information. So much for Iran's supposed "hatred for Sunnis" and "sectarianist" agenda...!

Last but not least, how is your assertion a valid counter-argument? For if the US targetted an Iranian commander, this alone means that the relationship between Tehran and Washington is profoundly conflictual in nature, not as you claim indifferent or even consensual! Surely Iran has gravely displeased the US empire for the latter to martyr its general. You do not behave that way towards a country you are not antagonistic against. Don't tell me you're not realizing this.

Also apparently in your world only Iran is working towards technological, agricultural, and industrial sufficiency. You are desperately trying to assert Iran as leader of Muslim world because they produce some tech(nothing specific you mention ) according to you. And you want other Muslim nations to look up to them on that basis.

I can't be seriously required to rehash things the Iranian section is outright littered with (examples of what Iran's drive towards self sufficiency entails). Instead of just dropping by to repeat the same discourse, look into it.

I don't want Iran to lead others, I would like to see others draw inspiration from Iran in the two areas I mentioned, as I believe Iran has outdone other Muslim states in these two realms. Also I would like to see improved relations with Iran on an equal footing, not any one side dominating the other.

Why should any Muslim nations take your so called resistance seriously when your own people on this forum say it's too costly to get into war with Israel (same thing Arab rulers say but only Arab rulers considered vassal states and zionists by you guys) ?

You constantly invoke all out war as the sole yardstick by which to measure resistance. That's wrong.

I shall illustrate my point through a simple example: the US and the USSR never directly went to war against one another, does that mean they were not bent on causing each other's demise? There was a red phone connecting the US and Soviet heads of state, does that imply they were "secret allies" not interested in bringing each other down?

Obviously, when there is a degree of deterrence, direct conventional military conflict will become less probable. However, the confrontation will be carried out through other means: information wars and soft power, intelligence operations, proxy conflicts on the periphery, you name it. That's how geopolitics work.

Iran and the zio-Americans have a gigantic history of mutual confrontation and antagonism. Entire books have been dedicated to the study of this history, which is continuing to this day and will continue way beyond.

Arab regimes aren't criticized for not launching military strikes on Isra"el" using their conventional means. They are criticized for not defining the zionist entity and its international tentacles as the overarching enemy, they are criticized for not daring assist anti-zionist resistance groups in Palestine and Lebanon to the same extent as Iran does (Iran has been the only state actor to dare extend military support to Palestinian factions ever since the fall of Saddam),

Did your Iran ever get into one war with Israel? Arab states got in multiple wars with Israel but none of them asking Muslim world to follow them or insinuating they are superior and need to be followed like you are doing with Iran.

How exactly do you want Iran to lead a conventional war against the apartheid regime? Look at a map and the distance separating them. Also what point is there in repeating the tactical and strategic errors of those Arabs states given that when you are facing a technologically and financially superior enemy with stronger allies, asymmetric doctrines are the way to go. Seeking to catch up in purely conventional terms is a non starter.

If in recent decades those same Arab states instead of signing peace treaties and launching all sorts of mutual cooperation channels with Tel Aviv did the same as Iran, the situation today in Occupied Palestine would be far more favorable.

So you first need to show us what this resistance you are talking about since in 40 years of your resistance revolution you didn't attack US or Israel. But Pakistani pilots actually fought in Arab - Israeli wars.

Once more: when Houthis in Yemen fight off Saudi invaders, you're calling that "Iranian aggression on Saudi".

When Hezbollah kicks out zionist occupiers twice with wholesale Iranian support, when Iran against all odds continues to arm Palestinian resistance groups (whether you're satisfied with the level of support or not, Iran is still the only state actor wordlwide daring enough to engage in this) suddenly you no longer perceive Iran's role and seek to deny it.

Sorry, it simply can't work that way.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

MERI MAA KI CHUT KA FORUM HAI YEH.

some typos are priceless

 

[SalarHaqq]

Iranian version of Shia is kufar and anyone who follows your version is a kafir and deserves to be killed. It is not the House of Saud it is your House of Ayatollas who are Full of Shi*t.

@waz @LeGenD @AgNoStiC MuSliM @PDF

This user is making takfir on nearly 80 million Muslims and calling for their extermination plain and simple.

Please take the action you deem appropriate. Thanks.

 

[LeGenD]

@Xerxes22

You are very short-tempered individual. Easily angered and you insulted Pakistan to maximum extent possible.

Quota complete?

@Sineva

You did not amend your original post even though I told you to.

I am not taking action because I want all to have a good look at this thread. This thread will stay for a while.

 

[Malik Alpha]

@waz @LeGenD @AgNoStiC MuSliM @PDF

This user is making takfir on nearly 80 million Muslims and calling for their extermination plain and simple.

Please take the action you deem appropriate. Thanks.

And calling Sunnis terrorists and labelling them Wahabis by your countryman who I replied to was totally normal and acceptable to you. Lol I literally see no difference between your regime and Zionists.

 

[LeGenD]

@waz @LeGenD @AgNoStiC MuSliM @PDF

This user is making takfir on nearly 80 million Muslims and calling for their extermination plain and simple.

Please take the action you deem appropriate. Thanks.

You are sensible contributor - credit where due.

I have checked this thread and reports. Who started this shit? A Pakistani member?

Two members:

@Sineva
@TheImmortal

Flamebaiting begets flamebaiting. No cover this time.

If (or) When action will be taken, every instigator will be dealt with. No selective judgements.

 

[SalarHaqq]

And calling Sunnis terrorists and labelling them Wahabis by your countryman who I replied to was totally normal and acceptable to you. Lol I literally see no difference between your regime and Zionists.

He's not my countryman and I certainly do not condone his behaviour, in fact I suspect he is intentionally trying to stoke tensions. Look up my first posts in this forum, I spent hours calling out his games.

However, let's be objective here, formulations are extremely important. He claimed "all "Sunni" terrorist groups are following wahhabi ideology"... I totally disagree with that "Sunni" label but he's still limiting his statement to terrorist groups and not including every Sunni out there. Had he written "Sunnis are wahhabis and terrorists" then your statement would be correct but that isn't what he stated, as much as I hate to point it out on that particular person's behalf.

You on the other hand litterally avocated for some 90% of Iranians who follow Shia Islam to be "killed" for supposedly being "kafirs" - regardless whether those are ordinary people, members of terrorist groups or whatever.

Besides, had he stated what you claim he did, why stoop to such a level and commit a serious sin (takfir against pious Muslims)? I'd suggest to make tawba and to refrain from repeating it ever again.

Last but not least, that user is anything but a supporter of the Islamic Republic.