Iran announces it will open schools in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon

On the one hand school = good. on the other hand school = propaganda outlet. make of this what you will...

Tehran announced on Wednesday that they will be opening the ‘College of Islamic Schools’ in Damascus, approximately a month after announcing the opening of several branches of the Iran-based Islamic Azad University across Syrian cities.
According to the Iranian Tasnim news agency, the head of strategic council on foreign relations, Kamel Kharrazi, announced the opening of the college during a meeting with the Syrian Minister of Religious Affairs Mohammed Abdul Sattar.Kharrazi, who was also Iran’s foreign minister until 2005, reaffirmed the need to hold forums for scholars of “different Islamic sects”.According to Tasnim, Abdul Sattar praised Iran’s role in Syria, and their support of the Syrian regime, announcing the date of the opening of the college in the Syrian capital in cooperation with the World Assembly for the Reapproachment of Islamic Sects.This comes after Ali Akbar Velayati, the head of Islamic Azad University board of founders, announced that the university will be opening branches across Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.Many saw the move as a soft power strategy by Tehran to promote their ideological and political agendas, in addition to heavy military involvement in these countries as well.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2018/03/01/Iran-announces-opening-of-another-Islamic-college-in-Syria.html

Reply 1

username3509752

Drop a few nukes on Iran already am I right

Reply 2

Napp

Original post by Edgemaster

Drop a few nukes on Iran already am I right

No.

Reply 3

The PoliticalGuy

Who cares?

There just trying to spread their radical undemocratic propaganda of Shia Islam to young innocent children to raise them up to join Hezbollah, oh?

Western intervention needed now!

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 4

Napp

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

Who cares?

There just trying to spread their radical undemocratic propaganda of Shia Islam to young innocent children to raise them up to join Hezbollah, oh?

Western intervention needed now!

As opposed to Sunni islam which is orders of magnitude worse?
Props to them if they wish to joiningg Hizbollah though.
Western intervention where ?

Reply 5

The PoliticalGuy

Original post by Napp

As opposed to Sunni islam which is orders of magnitude worse?

Shia/Sunni, Who cares? They both justify the persecution of minorities in the middle east.

Props to them if they wish to joiningg Hizbollah though.

No,No. Please don't start this.

Western intervention where ?

Western intervention so NATO can stop Iran's clear aim of terrorist recruitment.

Reply 6

Napp

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

Shia/Sunni, Who cares? They both justify the persecution of minorities in the middle east.

Shias are a minority.

No,No. Please don't start this.

But its so much fun?

Western intervention so NATO can stop Iran's clear aim of terrorist recruitment.

One of the dumbest ideas going to be honest - NATO was spanked in Iraq and it would be thoroughly thrashed in Iran. Not to mention, by all accounts, Iran doesnt sponsor any terrorists per se - unlike Britains masters in Saudi who support all the terrorists they can lay their grubby little hands on.

Reply 7

The PoliticalGuy

Original post by Napp

Shias are a minority.

Not in Iraq ,Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, your continuous denial of facts is appeasing.

How was NATO spanked? The aim of getting rid of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein was accomplished, I struggle to understand how that constitutes into a spank. "Iran doesn't sponsor terrorists", oh please even the president of the free world said that they are the biggest sponsorer of terrorism in the world. I am not denying Britain sponsors terrorism but surely not as much as Iran, with the involvements of the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 8

username358506

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

Not in Iraq ,Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, your continuous denial of facts is appeasing.

Shias are the minority in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen; they are the majority in Iraq.

The U.S. may have overthrown Saddam, but in the process Iraq became a client state of Iran.

That, my friend, is a foreign policy spanking.

Reply 9

username358506

Original post by Napp

NATO had nothing to do with the removal of Saddam.

Reply 10

Napp

Original post by Stalin

NATO had nothing to do with the removal of Saddam.

Certain NATO countries, sorry for the lack of clarity.

Reply 11

CookieButter

A guy with an Avatar of Tony Blair preaching right from wrong....can you even f'n believe this s**t?

Reply 12

The PoliticalGuy

Original post by Stalin

Shias are the minority in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen; they are the majority in Iraq.

They are not the minority in Lebanon in fact they make up 40% of the Lebanese population and in Syria, I can't seem to think how a ruling Shia government can be a minority.They make up As for Yemen I made a dire mistake.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 13

Napp

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

Not in Iraq ,Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, your continuous denial of facts is appeasing.

Err they're a minority in all but Iraq. If you're going to try and present lies as facts as least make them vaguely plausible.

Seeing as that was only 1 aim and every other aim was not met. The country was not pacified and it most certainly is not a democracy in the sense they wanted. At any rate I was more reffering to the insurgency and the Shia militias who forced the west, broadly speaking, out. Take Basra for a beautiful example.

Thats because 'the president of the free world' is an ignorant little man with a rather small brain - i'd be damned if he could even point to Iran on a map. But please tell me exactly what terror they support? Hizbullah being an perfectly aceptable organisation and at worst not more than a militia - not a terror group [the fact they fight with the israelis does not make them terrorists]. Hamas, to a point. The Houthis - oh very droll, pray tell how exactly they are terrorists though? For fighting again the barbaric Saudis and their campaign of genocide? No - that is an example of Britain sponsoring terror with the Saudis.
I think you'll find we sponsor far far more than the Iranians could ever dream of. They sponsor their compatriots to whatever ever - we sponsor Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan [most places in Africa] etc. Pray tell how what we do is somehow better than what they do?

Reply 14

Napp

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

They make up 27pc.
The alawites are a tiny minority of Syria and that is why its ruled as a dictatorship, strangely enough. I feel you should study some Middle Eastern post colonial politics - you will learn exactly why these demographics and power arrangements exist.

Reply 15

username358506

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

They are not the minority in Lebanon in fact they make up 40% of the Lebanese population and in Syria, I can't seem to think how a ruling Shia government can be a minority. As for Yemen I made a dire mistake.

Approximately one quarter of the people in Lebanon are Shia - not two-fifths.

Whether the Syrian government is predominantly Sunni or Shia is irrelvant - the Sunnis make up three-quarters of the population.

Reply 16

The PoliticalGuy

Original post by Napp

Who cares Iraq is a much better place now than before Sadam Hussein and that was the main objection, we all know the claim of WMD was to justify clearing out the brutal dictator.

But please tell me exactly what terror they support? Hizbullah being an perfectly aceptable organisation and at worst not more than a militia - not a terror group [the fact they fight with the israelis does not make them terrorists]. Hamas, to a point. The Houthis - oh very droll, pray tell how exactly they are terrorists though? For fighting again the barbaric Saudis and their campaign of genocide? No - that is an example of Britain sponsoring terror with the Saudis.

Hezbollah - A group of undemocratic Islamist extremists that use "unlawful violence" to spread their extreme Shia and sharia law agenda. "Pray" tell me how they aren't terrorists.
Hamas - A group of undemocratic Islamist extremists that use unlawful violence to spread their anti-Semite, anti-democratic, implementation of sharia law agenda. "Pray" tell me how they are not terrorists.
Houthis - A group of undemocratic Islamist extremists who use unlawful violence to spread their interpretation of Shia Islam."Pray" tell me how they aren't terrorists.

You see the pattern?

I think you'll find we sponsor far far more than the Iranians could ever dream of. They sponsor their compatriots to whatever ever - we sponsor Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan [most places in Africa] etc. Pray tell how what we do is somehow better than what they do?

Apart from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan I don't see how the other countries relate to terrorism, as you are the expert feel free to enlighten me however.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 17

Napp

Original post by The PoliticalGuy

Who cares Iraq is a much better place now than before Sadam Hussein and that was the main objection, we all know the claim of WMD was to justify clearing out the brutal dictator.

You are aware that the country fell into civil war and bread ISIL because ofthe toppling right?
The brutal dictator we helped put [by default] and keep in power? the same one we allowed to massacre his population, the same one we gave the know how to make WMDs to, the same one we helped gas the Iranians? If we really did topple him because he was nasty, why didnt we do it sooner then? I'll tell you why because he was useful and when he stopped being useful i.e. when bush needed a new target to blow up after afghanistan went tits up iraq seemed handy.

Hezbollah - A group of undemocratic Islamist extremists that use "unlawful violence" to spread their extreme Shia and sharia law agenda. "Pray" tell me how they aren't terrorists.

Actually they are rather democratic - they happily engage in elections and are immensely popular with the population.
As for 'unlawful violence' are you talking about against Israel here? In which case it is perfectly legitimate considering theyre trying to take back the land israel annexed in 2000.
I feel your only objection is based on religion to be frank and even that is applicable to the entire region for not really a reason against hezbollah inparticular. Also on that what are you on about 'spreading' it? They dont promote islamic revolution anywhere - they are a purely nationalist group.

Hamas - A group of undemocratic Islamist extremists that use unlawful violence to spread their anti-Semite, anti-democratic, implementation of sharia law agenda. "Pray" tell me how they are not terrorists.
Houthis - A group of undemocratic Islamist extremists who use unlawful violence to spread their interpretation of Shia Islam."Pray" tell me how they aren't terrorists.

As I said your objection seems solely based on religion.
Not to mention you're completely ignoring these groups raison detre which is not so much the spread of islam but for the 2 former, against Israel - and a good cause it is - and the latter is a domestic concern above anything else as well. These groups are not like the Iranian regime once was intent on spreading islamic revolution everywhere, this is simply a falsehood.

Apart from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan I don't see how the other countries relate to terrorism, as you are the expert feel free to enlighten me however.

Qatar, UAE, Bahrain all have a history of sponsoring sunni extremism - only a foolish person would be unaware of this.
The same goes for Sudan although theyre form of terror [along with all of the other countries listed] is not so much religious as political terror - mass arrests, executions, crimes against humanity and so on. If you think our foreign policy is dictated by ideals above practicalities i.e. who can make us rich you might want to look into it a bit more.

But as far as I can make out your only objection seems to be that the groups aforementioned are Islamic which unless you're simply a bigot is not a reason in of itself to hate them. A far more worthy group to hate would be Likud who spread terror and murder at whimsey.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 18

username3748656

The invasion of Iraq wasn't the issue, it was how it was handled afterwards. The Western leaders didn't put in as much effort as they had done for Nazi Germany. How come? Because there was no East Iraq, controlled by the Russians.

I'm from Afghanistan, if the top eastern part of Afghanistan became part of of the Russian sphere of interest and a puppet state of Russia known as "East Afghanistan" then watch how all of a sudden, the Taliban, Al-Quada and the other issues such as poverty and lack of education gets minimised in West Afghanistan because then there's competition and Western powers want the Afghans to like them and not the Russians.

That's the issue, Western leaders don't care about Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. I can't blame them, that's natural, they know they can take their time.