U.S. Ambassador to Israel Receives Picture of Jerusalem With Third Temple Replacing Muslim Mosques

[R2D2]

The current US-Israeli policy is to remove obstacles to Greater Israel like Iraq, Libya and Syria. Israelis tried to attack Lebanon but got a bloody nose from there. When the opposing forces like the Baathists and ex-soviet camp countries have been neutralized, then the Israelis and their American lackeys will concentrate on other countries like Iran and Pakistan (Ref. Blood Borders Article). As far as prophecies are concerned, we are bound only by the Islamic ones and as the Ahadeeth are graded, we can concentrate on the Sahih and Hasan Ahadeeth. As far as I have read the Islamic Prophecies (up to first four books) there is no mention of destruction of Al-Aqsa. There will be much destruction in the Arab World. At one point the Christians will stop supporting the zionists and together with the muslims will destroy Israel. It is mentioned that the rocks and trees (except one tree) will not give protection to the Jews to hide behind them. Imam Khumeeni believed that the Iranian people should prepare for the coming of Mehdi. Similarly, we should strengthen/militarize ourselves so that the Ummah is ready to march towards Israel when the time comes. In this regard, two/three years compulsory military training and service as well as guerrilla training should be started for the youth.

 

[raptor22]

Yes, like Iran supports secularism in Syria but sticks to her Shiite rule at home. All are same, hypocrites!

Bring me one line by Iranian authorities that they said Iran supports secularism in Syria, there is none ... simply we support Syria as country as we support Iraq and we've made it clear that the only way out of this situation ,whether in 2012 or now, is ballot boxes which could end up in very different government for instance a Sunni government, what ever it might be it gotta be Syrian people decision not Obama or Saudis say the so-and-so should go etc etc, and the irony is again the other side of Syrian story is the US and its allies in the region.
But in isreal we see at least 7 decades (more than a century) plot and wars to bring all Jews in Palestine to create greater isreal ... in this way there was no crime that was conducted by this regime which British, the US and western countries didn't support ... occupation, discrimination and so on.

Look at this:

Exclusive: Israeli minister says U.S. may soon recognize Israel's hold on Golan

 

[T-Rex]

Bring me one line by Iranian authorities that they said Iran supports secularism in Syria, there is none ... simply we support Syria as country as we support Iraq and we've made it clear that the only way out of this situation ,whether in 2012 or now, is ballot boxes which could end up in very different government for instance a Sunni government, what ever it might be it gotta be Syrian people decision not Obama or Saudis say

Sissy in Egypt is also using ballot boxes. How does Iran intend to stop that kind abuse of ballot boxes?

 

[OldTwilight]

All of this is now happening openly without any effort to hide the agenda. They now that situation of Muslims governments in current times is nothing more than paper cards.

result of Afghanistan , Iraq and Libya and Syria wars which Arab themselves are the main sponsor of it ... let see where are next target

 

[DarkPrince]

Sooner they build third temple better it will be for Muslims, at-least as per prophecies if those are to be believed.

Do you know the scary part ? That every Islamic prophecies are becoming real. And Zionists are literally fulfilling it.

 

[El Sidd]

Thats not the historical location of the Temple.

The Temple is in the City of David just adjacent to the touted area which is the historical Roman outpost.

 

[raptor22]

Sissy in Egypt is also using ballot boxes. How does Iran intend to stop that kind abuse of ballot boxes?

Sissy in Egypt and other pawns like him in the region are great examples of this fact that unlike what western countries esp the US claim and sanction and invade countries for that in reality they don't care about democracy and human right they are just after their interests.
On Syria:
First of all Iran proposed constitution amendments which in Syria become a parliamentary democracy which in power would not be centralized in one office consequently it doesn't matter even if a person like Assad get reelected cause he wouldn't have last saying.
Secondly any election ought to be held under strict international observers to prevent any fraud,manipulation or vote rigging.
And at last democracy ain't a over-night achievement or a commodity that you could import it actually it's a process which certainly takes time people should learn it and grasp it otherwise even with the best monitoring system and law fraud is inevitable.

 

[The SC]

Sissy in Egypt and other pawns like him in the region are great examples of this fact that unlike what western countries esp the US claim and sanction and invade countries for that in reality they don't care about democracy and human right they are just after their interests.
On Syria:
First of all Iran proposed constitution amendments which in Syria become a parliamentary democracy which in power would not be centralized in one office consequently it doesn't matter even if a person like Assad get reelected cause he wouldn't have last saying.
Secondly any election ought to be held under strict international observers to prevent any fraud,manipulation or vote rigging.
And at last democracy ain't a over-night achievement or a commodity that you could import it actually it's a process which certainly takes time people should learn it and grasp it otherwise even with the best monitoring system and law fraud is inevitable.

Iran is in no position to claim democracy for itself..let alone propose it to others.. aren't your leaders the wannabe pawns of the West.. just look how they are literally dying to keep European business.. and didn't they buy from the US airplanes as first thing after signing the nuclear deal.. who are the real pawns now!?

 

[raptor22]

Iran is in no position to claim democracy for itself..let alone propose it to others.. aren't your leaders the wannabe pawns of the West.. just look how they are literally dying to keep European business.. and didn't they buy from the US airplanes as first thing after signing the nuclear deal.. who are the real pawns now!?

First of all every move by any nation including Saudis to bring stability in Syria is welcomed by us, as this proposal was a mutual attempt btw Iranian and Turkish delegation back in 2012-13 to put an end to suffering of Syrian people. Surly we do not claim democracy but helping Syrian to make their voices heard through ballot boxes and at the end it would Syrian whom decide. what is you problem by this?
On the other hand it's obvious that new Egyptian election wasn't democratic, was it? so when President of the US next to its secretary of state congratulated Sissiy victory and welcomed results then ... and it's not new.


P.s:
And since when buying airplane makes you pawn of the US? The US buys Iranian carpet for example now does it turn them to our servant?China and Russia buy American airplane are they pawn too? or the US buy Russian engines for its space program does it apply to them too?
And since when making westerns to follow their commitments means dying to keep European business? we are just asking them to either you would honor your part of deal or we get out of it and it's actually EU+Russia and China whom insist on keeping the deal and try to protect their business otherwise how Iran dying could convince them to do so?
The real pawns are those whom don't rely on their own people and need foreign protection.

 

[T-Rex]

Sissy in Egypt and other pawns like him in the region are great examples of this fact that unlike what western countries esp the US claim and sanction and invade countries for that in reality they don't care about democracy and human right they are just after their interests.
On Syria:
First of all Iran proposed constitution amendments which in Syria become a parliamentary democracy which in power would not be centralized in one office consequently it doesn't matter even if a person like Assad get reelected cause he wouldn't have last saying.
Secondly any election ought to be held under strict international observers to prevent any fraud,manipulation or vote rigging.
And at last democracy ain't a over-night achievement or a commodity that you could import it actually it's a process which certainly takes time people should learn it and grasp it otherwise even with the best monitoring system and law fraud is inevitable.

If this is truly what Iran wants in Syria Iran has to talk to those who have been fighting against assad for democracy. I don't think they'll refuse to cooperate if this is indeed what Iran seeks. On the other hand Iran has to stop assad from killing those who seek another ruler through ballot boxes.

 

[raptor22]

If this is truly what Iran wants in Syria Iran has to talk to those who have been fighting against assad for democracy. I don't think they'll refuse to cooperate if this is indeed what Iran seeks. On the other hand Iran has to stop assad from killing those who seek another ruler through ballot boxes.

It's truly what Iran wants Iran called out for it in 2012-13 while Assad was losing badly and again ask for it right now while Assad has control over 60% of Syria and retaken major cities.
The point is you should see the bigger picture the problem of Syria wasn't democracy or dictatorship, the plan was much more bigger than Syria.

By the way, on Syria:

The plan envisaged a ceasefire followed by a national unity government and constitutional reform aimed at constraining presidential powers. Most importantly, there would then be presidential and legislative elections under UN supervision. The plan was the subject of several months of shuttle diplomacy between the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoğlu, but it eventually collapsed over the future role of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

“We agreed on every detail, except a clause in the final phase of the plan which called for UN-monitored elections. Turkish leaders wanted Assad barred,” Zarif is quoted as saying in the report. “I noted that this should not be a concern in an internationally monitored election, particularly if, as Turkey holds, Assad has a dreadful record and a minority constituency. But Davutoğlu refused... and our efforts came to naught.”

According to the report, titled Turkey and Iran: Bitter Friends, Bosom Rivals, the Turkish government did not believe that Assad would accept any transition process that would weaken his grip on power and Ankara still thought his military defeat was inevitable.

The Turkish president at the time, Abdullah Gül, told the ICG “our government did not pursue an agreement with Iran because it thought Assad would be toppled in a few months”.

“From Ankara’s perspective, Assad’s battlefield losses would remove need to compromise or at least improve a deal’s terms,” the report said.
Iran and Turkey's secret talks on Syria revealed

 

[T-Rex]

It's truly what Iran wants Iran called out for it in 2012-13 while Assad was losing badly and again ask for it right now while Assad has control over 60% of Syria and retaken major cities.
The point is you should see the bigger picture the problem of Syria wasn't democracy or dictatorship, the plan was much more bigger than Syria.

By the way, on Syria:

The plan envisaged a ceasefire followed by a national unity government and constitutional reform aimed at constraining presidential powers. Most importantly, there would then be presidential and legislative elections under UN supervision. The plan was the subject of several months of shuttle diplomacy between the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoğlu, but it eventually collapsed over the future role of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

“We agreed on every detail, except a clause in the final phase of the plan which called for UN-monitored elections. Turkish leaders wanted Assad barred,” Zarif is quoted as saying in the report. “I noted that this should not be a concern in an internationally monitored election, particularly if, as Turkey holds, Assad has a dreadful record and a minority constituency. But Davutoğlu refused... and our efforts came to naught.”

According to the report, titled Turkey and Iran: Bitter Friends, Bosom Rivals, the Turkish government did not believe that Assad would accept any transition process that would weaken his grip on power and Ankara still thought his military defeat was inevitable.

The Turkish president at the time, Abdullah Gül, told the ICG “our government did not pursue an agreement with Iran because it thought Assad would be toppled in a few months”.

“From Ankara’s perspective, Assad’s battlefield losses would remove need to compromise or at least improve a deal’s terms,” the report said.
Iran and Turkey's secret talks on Syria revealed

As far as I know Turkey wanted assad to step down before taking part in the election as a candidate for the sake of free and fair election. Why didn't Iran press assad to do that if Iran was sincere about a free and fair election?

 

[raptor22]

As far as I know Turkey wanted assad to step down before taking part in the election as a candidate for the sake of free and fair election. Why didn't Iran press assad to do that if Iran was sincere about a free and fair election?

"Turkey wanted assad to step down"
"Saudis wanted assad to step down"
"Amercians wanted assad to step down"
The Q: what Syrian want?
And to get to that point they flooded Syria with weapons and terrorists. That's the problem in Syria and in the region. someone else want to make decisions on behalf of Syrians .. why? The point is what Syrian want? The only way to get the answer ain't arming terrorists (not opposition though there is no moderate opposition in Syria anymore) but ballot boxes.
How it could it be free and fair election if you put conditions for Syrians? you say Assad is bad, ok no problem but it's your idea and here not Iran idea not Turkey idea no other one's idea matters .. if Syrian are supposed to choose then who the hell Turkey or Iran or Saudis or Americans to tell them choose these ones but not this one. If as you said Assad is bad and Syrian despise him then they wouldn't vote him and he wouldn't be president anymore.
And if elections is gonna be held under international observation and president power would get shrunk by new constitution then it doesn't matter whom stands as candidate.
We have to just help them with the process of the election not telling them whom they should vote or shouldn't, and whatever the results might be all sides must respect it.

 

[Sliver]

on a different, but related note: what should be the way to deal with the structures which were razed to build mosques?

 

[T-Rex]

"Turkey wanted assad to step down"
"Saudis wanted assad to step down"
"Amercians wanted assad to step down"
The Q: what Syrian want?

Election, not a bloody despot and his supporters, would tell what Syrians wanted!