Is Assad at the verge and what does his fall mean for Iran?!

shahinc · May 17, 2013

Here is the answer to your questions Masoud Jan.

"Why should we support the Islamists fighting Assad?"
Answer: We are NOT. We support the nationalist Syrians citizens who protested against the Bashar peacefully and were butchered savagely and were pushed into picking arm to continue their quest toward justice.

Flint · May 17, 2013

Bi-honar said:

thankyou.ithinknato+salfis+wahabis+israelis+alqaedaareontheropesandassadandirwilllive.

Flint · May 17, 2013

"without iran's participation they can not make a deal in syria"

Right, that's what they said about Iraq. Iran was so influential that without them America would lose the war. Bush's answer? NO! He sent more of his boys there with one simple instruction: Win this thing. And they did. The guns of insurgents fell silent and IR turned around with its tail between its legs. Now comes this playboy of ours and does Iran's bidding. Here is another gem:

"now it is decision time for obama.is he going to bring in iran and beg them"

Just listen to the tone of his voice. It wreaks of akhoond talking. How an Islamists revolutionary who hates America became a seasoned option trader I can never figure out.

masoudA · May 17, 2013

shahinc said:

Shahin Jaan - the same can be said about those who opposed MRP and ended up with Khomeini.

shahinc · May 17, 2013

masoudA said:

No, it can not

Did MRP used fighter jets and bomb Iranian Cities ? No, he did not.
Did MRP Shelled Iranian cities to the ground ? No, he did not.
MRP has killed less people in the 3 decades that he ruled Iran than Bashar and his government has done in just 1 week.

Plus, which group of MRP opposition was standing up for justice ?
Was it Khomeyni and his pals from Qum or was it Rajavi and his bodies or maybe the Red wearing, russia loving lefties ?
Or maybe it was the "Meli-Mazhani" with the leadership of guys like Bazargan and Sahabi who were too busy bending down and kissing the hand of Khomeyni

Motori · May 17, 2013

masoudA said:

Masoud jAn.

1st of all do you really mean to welcome this neglected, isolated, looney and left over communist? Do you really mean what you expressed to him?

2nd of all I answered his so well recognized moronic question few times, and here is the way it transpired:

I told him that I DON"T give rat's ass about those ragtag allaho kabar kabar yelling islamist in syria, they can all to to hell at once as far as I care, BUT I believe the fall of ass-ad will cut another tentacle of this 34 years old octopus called IRR in the regon and unholly connection between IRR and hezbolly and that fat swine hassan hasrolly (not be be confused with our own hassan joon) will be severed for good. Enshalllahhh

His respond was OHHH you "nadan, seyyed, zenazadeh, dayyous, haroomzadeh, bisavaad" after these islamists take over of syria they will be so powerful and ideologically motivated who sure will turn east twd Iran and in a jiffy will cut all of our throats and slaughter us all claiming another "Ghadesyyeh" I believe this is where you agree with chinchina and stand. Don't you?

Then in another post I asked him why he believes Israel is supporting the rebels because it really does not make any sense, since assad & father were totally harmless twd Israel ever since 1973 (excluding 1982 negligible skirmish in Lebanon), his respond was "Israel is supporting rebels just because with all these destruction and carnage happening, syria will become so weak, so miserable that will not even be able to think about a desire to meddle within syrian and Israeli borders, let alone all out military attack and a war.

OK! Which one is it? Are they going to be so weak that can't even discharge a cartridge twd Israel? Or they will be so formidable that can march through country of iraq and conduct an all out military attack against Iran over 1000 km away. Which one is it?

At this point of time, I'm truly wondering!!!

Bi-honar · May 17, 2013

Definitely worth a read... Situation is MUCH worse than many people acknowledge. I particularly found this passage noteworthy: ""Baghdadi and the (al Qaeda) leadership consider the Muslim Brotherhood, the Free Syrian Army and other factions including Christians as infidels and when they saw Golani was on good terms with them they were not happy."

Insight: Syria's Nusra Front eclipsed by Iraq-based al Qaeda

masoudA · May 17, 2013

Dear Motori
As I said there is no excuse for badmouthing people like Arti or BH the way he did.......
But back to Assad, you are raising interesting questions.........I am not sure at all Isreal is helping the rebels...I know the Saudis and Obama are. The way I see it is that the freaking "New World Order" apparantly includes an Islamist Calif spearheahed by the Saudis........can you imagine how something like that would impact Iran? It would be Omar time all over again. Yes, IR shall be screwed big time if something like that happens....but so will Iran and Iranians. Unfortunately this is a very complex case and I feel the west is making an extremely wrong decesion.

As you can see in what BH just posted - China's frustrations (not his reactions) were justified. How can any Iranian support a movement spearheaded by the Saudis by way of Al-Qaedeh.....

Bi-honar · May 17, 2013

masoudA said:

So, you ignored all the facts and let's continue the argument based on some ridiculous theories about the "new world order" spearheaded by the Saudis and Al Qaeda!!! No wonder you find that guy's uninformed and paranoid rants even worth reading!

BTW, Al Qaeda gained power and started its actions under Reagan and then Bush Sr., not your Nubian president and it was Bush junior that was buddy buddy with the Saudis and spread those Al Qaeda fuckers throughout the ME and gave them justification to rage jihad against the free world - the same fuckers that are now hell bent in building an Islamic Caliphate in Syria after failing to do so in Iraq under the new US foreign policy. Not to mention that GW increased the "Islamic" Republic's influence in Iraq and Afghanistan and strengthened "Islamist" Hamas and "Islamist" Hezbollah. But you supported all those actions didn't you and now you're blaming the consequences on someone else.

Flint · May 17, 2013

masoudA said:

No matter what we say you keep coming back with the same thing. What is the point of this dialog then? You just asked this question and BH, Motori and I answered them. Why are you not responding to our points? Once again, here is the situation. Assad is on the ropes. What would you do to finish him off?

Hassan1980 · May 17, 2013

Flint said:

Keep telling yourself that. you are saying this for nearly 3 years already hehe. Btw, add a 0 after the 3 and you have your answer on ''how many years before assad goes'' ?

Flint · May 17, 2013

Bi-honar said:

You know I must respond to this! First, I do not consider the Saudi regime a threat to the west or the world. Yes, Bin Laden was from there and 9/11 hijackers. So what? The kingdom is very conservative and is not in the business of fomenting revolutions like IR. As for Bush, I believe that after 25 years of getting hit, from Beirut in 1983 to embassies in Africa, and Khobar towers and the Cole bombing, US HAD to act. You cannot avoid a war that is waged on you. The war was with the Islamists and the battlefield was in the middle east. That's where you go to fight. The Iraq war was really two wars. The first one was won in 3 weeks. The second one was an entirely different war and had nothing to do with Saddam. The likes of IR, AlQaeda and all the Islamists recognized that they cannot allow the US to come across the world and beat them in their own backyard. The war that ensued was an existential war for them. That's why they fought tooth and nail. They threw everything they had but they lost the war. Yes, they LOST the war. If there is anything political about it is that at the time all the Democrats were in favor of leaving Iraq at the worst possible time, including Obama. IR and the rest of the gang would be teaching the defeat of the US in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Bi-honar · May 17, 2013

Syria rebel 'heart eater' says ready to face trial if Assad does

Interesting that even this "animal" "terrorist" understands that there are consequence for his actions and he's ready to face them. Is that angel Assad ready to admit his mistakes and face the consequences of his actions?! There may be Islamist animals on the battlefields in Syria, but the biggest loss of human suffering and lives is still coming from the most animalistic them of all.

Bache Tehroon · May 17, 2013

Bi-honar said:

How do you know that?

By all accounts, most of the civilian murders are being committed by the rebels at this point. This is not what I claim. This is what THEY claim themselves in their videos. Their motto is "we're coming. Be ready to die"!

They're executing civilians in public squares. There's ample evidence available for that.

Be careful Behroujan. You're a bit blinded by your hate for Assad (Who is a criminal and should go).

Bi-honar · May 17, 2013

Flint said:

I totally agree with that. Massi's making these guys look a lot bigger than they are. If anything, they're more concerned about money and not letting the Shiite minority in the North East question or jeopardize their rule and financial position.

Flint said:

Agreed. Neither I, nor Canada as a whole, was against action in Afghanistan. Something had to be done, although I'm always against boots on the ground (after the lessons learnt in Vietnam). The main portion of that war should have been finished in 72 hours after a heavy aerial campaign. And there should have been a continuous effort to hit those guys as soon as they regrouped. Scattering them and pushing them into hiding by putting boots on the ground was a mistake that prolonged that conflict. The Libya response was the correct one IMHO - provide the help and let them sort through their own mess.

Flint said:

I, like Canada as a whole

, was against the war in Iraq - at least the way it was conducted. Like you said there were two wars and the 1st one was finished in 3 weeks. I would have been okay with that part, the no-fly-zone after and limited hits. Ultimately, you have to let the people of each country make their own decisions and fight their own battles. Boots on the ground always creates resentment in the long run.

The only part that I don't agree with you on is that terrorists lost the war in Iraq. They weren't there before the invasion and they have blossomed since, to the point of having enough numbers to pour onto Syria now. If you look at it like that Saddam lost the war, the US and the international community as a whole gained very little from it, the US paid heavily for it with lives and money, IR gained more power and influence as did Al Qaeda. Those two groups were the real winners in the Iraq war IMHO.

Bi-honar · May 17, 2013

Bache Tehroon said:

Soroosh jaan, the number of civilians being killed by the rebels, even now that shit has hit the fan, is nothing compared to how many people are being killed by the shelling and bombing of neighbourhoods and cities by Assad's forces. You are basing your assessment on a few YT videos. If you want to be objective, you'll find a dozen videos of leveled neighbourhoods, bombings, missile attacks and massacres by Assad forces for every video of a few terrorists executing a couple of people - that's if you want to be objective.

Have you seen pictures of Syrian cities with entire neighbourhoods having turned into rubble from bombs, scuds and tanks and constant shelling? Those are all people's homes. You think those homes were empty when they were hit? You think Assad is using precision guided ammunition? They're levelling entire neighbourhoods where rebels have infiltrated, before they move in. Their philosophy is that if rebels are your neighbourhood, you're supporting them and deserve to die. And whoever survives is normally executed on the spot. That's where the majority of civilian deaths are coming from, not the 3 Shabiha that get executed in a square or a soldier whose heart gets eaten - neither of those are even considered civilians.

Bache Tehroon · May 17, 2013

Bi-honar said:

A lot of the destruction is done by the rebels. It's not like the rebels only have AK47s to fight Assad's tanks! At this point, they have more bombs, artillery shells and RPGs than Assad's army probably. Most rebels I have seen in videos (which are not YouTube videos and nothing that can easily be posted here) is accompanied by a squad of RPG holding, ammo carrying, highly equipped staff.

There are countless videos of Rebels using people's nicely furnished homes as RPG-firing hide-outs. There are videos of rebels forcing people out of their homes to use their windows as sniping positions. Why do you think the tanks fire on civilian buildings? Because the rebels are firing RPGs and sniping from them.

Here's how I look at it:

If the rebels showed any (I mean any) mercy on the captured army soldiers, I would definitely be rooting for them. What I see over and over is rebels executing whoever they capture without hesitation. That makes me hate them. Regardless of how many people Assad has killed, the rebels are worse.

Keep in mind, Assad's soldiers are not ideological. The rebels are Islamic freaks. Given that both sides are ruthless killers, I would still have to take Assad's side because at least he's a secular guy. I know all too well what will transpire of these rebels gaining authority. Hell, there are videos that prove my point.

masoudA · May 17, 2013

Bi-honar said:

So Bush created Al-ghaedeh,.....New World Ordder is a Hoax and..............ISlamists are great!! Allaho Akbar......
spin?

Flint - what are you saying? forget the others.......last I checked on what you are saying was that you don't care about the fate of the Syrian People....to you they are just casualties of politics....
I ask all of you again: Is there ANY time or any ciircumstance we as Iranians should be supporting a Saudi led al-qada driven movement anywhere? What if they attack Iran say through Khouzestan - would you support them? Yes or NO?

Flint · May 17, 2013

Bi-honar said:

There is certainly a logic in seeing it that way but calling them winners is a bit of stretch. If they had really won in Iraq you could see it. You would see them in power, you would see them marching their armies up and down the main street, you would see them flying on private planes to capitals. That's what they wanted. That's what Sadr and his army wanted. They might be in a camp here and there but that is not what they had in mind. And I am not sure what "pouring" across the border means? They do not have the logistics, the supply routes, the infrastructure because they have no country.

Now, for a second lets speculate what would the region look like if Saddam was left in power. Do you have any doubt that by now he would have struck an alliance with the IR? They were almost there. They had diplomatic relations, there were travels etc. They had so much in common in fighting the US. You'd be looking at a patch of terrorist states from Beirut to Damascus to Tehran. Interestingly, you are arguing for the removal of Assad to weaken IR. I argue that the removal of Saddam did just that because 2003 was not 1980. They were friends. Iran and Iraq with their oil money , armies and population would be a powerhouse in the middle east. Throw in Syria and you got yourself a might brew.

Bache Tehroon · May 17, 2013

Flint said:

You are talking as if Saddam of 2003 was the Saddam of 1980 in terms of power and wealth. The only reason Iran had a good relationship with Iraq was because Saddam had become a begger in the region and I.R saw fit to throw him some bones in return for substantial influence and business.

Iran was in great shape internationally. Hell there were talks of direct talks with the US. We now know it was all a show that Khamenei wouldn't have gone for, but at the time, the atmosphere in the region was very much in Iran's favor. Saddam had no choice but to be friendly to I.R.

Both Iran and Iraq had little oil money. Iraq had pretty much no army and Iran's military was a lot less funded than today. Syria was never a force in the region to begin with. There was no threat. Had a government like Khatami's followed instead of AN's, Iran would've probably separated from the bandits in the region and been a semi-ally to the US by now.

The invasion of Iraq was Exon, BP, Shell and Texaco's way of acquiring a huge warehouse at the American taxpayer's expense.

Is Assad at the verge and what does his fall mean for Iran?!

Legionnaire

Legionnaire

Legionnaire

Legionnaire

Legionnaire

Captain

Coach

Legionnaire

Coach

Legionnaire

Bench Warmer

Legionnaire

Coach

Elite Member

Coach

Coach

Elite Member

Legionnaire

Legionnaire

Elite Member