Friday, September 14, 2007

Qur'an Verse 9:11 - 'The Wrath of the Eagle' is a Hoax but recent conversations really make me wonder?

This is a bit long but very Important as to what is unfolding!

Wednesday I included a verse that was sent to me and I was not sure if it was real or not because it was just too much of a coincidence to me but I used it anyway. Today I looked it up and found out that it was a Hoax but in light of some very good conversations I have been having with a few people from the middle east I find that Hoax very troubling because it is true! I find myself wondering who started it and what Religion were they?

Anyway here is the Quote as I was given it: Quran ( 9:11) -- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace. (Note the verse number!!!!!)

Come to find out Verse 9:11 of the Qur'an is about repentance and the earliest fake passage I hear of is from February 14, 2003.
Urban Legends

Before I found out it was fake I have had many conversations with friends from various parts of the middle east and found the words expressed in the hoax to be 100% true and troubling knowing Bush has his share in making the Hoax True!
Being from America I knew there was ingrained hate and animosity between Persians and Arabs but didn't realize why or how deep.

First I want to say I like and respect those on both sides of this issue and I have to say that being a peace loving average American I do not like what is developing and I agree with those that wonder why is it every time Iran throws us a bone Bush ignores it. He wants confrontation so there should be no wondering why but hearing this from another friend from the middle east I see there is truth to the Koran Hoax but no one will like it.

: Nobody wants anymore wars. But if the the Americans don't bomb Iran. who is going to kick them out of Iraq? Iraq had to fight Iran because the progressive Iraqi model posed a threat to the fanatic religious Irani model where nationalism is mixed with religion. Those who are in power in Iraq now are not Iraqis-they are Iranians who fought with Iran against their own country. Promptly after the American invasion one million Iranians crossed the border and colonized the south.

Iran's main goal is to dilute and wipe out the Arabic national identity of Iraq and turn into an Irani client state. Simply because a strong secular progressive Iraq defeated Iran in the 8 years war and blocked the Irani's from entering the middle east.

I hate war...but America is the last hope for Arabs against the Iranian hordes.you can't imagine how bad it tastes for not just Iraqis ( I mean real Iraqis) but all Arabs from Morocco to IRAQ when Iranians say they want to help building Iraq. That is not right, Iraq is an Arab country, for it to fall in the hands of Iranians is very awful thing.

The helpless prey here is the great nation of Iraq and its people........Iranians are cunningly making use of the rising anti war sentiments among Americans who were previously misinformed about the issue, to prevent a blow to their country while they further entrench themselves in Iraq where they are persistently causing cultural and demographic changes and ethnically cleansing NOT JUST SUNNIS BUT ALSO A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF SHIITES WHO ARE OPPOSING THE WICKED IRANI PRESENCE IN IRAQ.

As an American patriot who truly believes in the American core ideals of gentlemanliness and freedom you must direct all your efforts towards saving the Iraqi nation from its medieval enemies who are devouring it now.

Honestly speaking and Millions of Arabs share this view with me....an American occupation is far more better than an Irani one for several reasons:

Americans are highly developed and advanced people.....who will sooner later leave, simply because this region is belongs to different cultural sphere than western one. Definitely they, would have a much less harmful effect than the Iranians, that is if they don't induce a progressive change.I am afraid he doesn't know Bush!

Iranians on the other hand, are capable of causing real demographic and cultural changes in this nation . It is already happening in the south according to various different press reports millions of Iranian's have crossed the border they displaced Iraqis and Persian is now an official language in the south.

I tell you Jim if Iran lays its hands on the tremendous natural wealth of Iraq it will turn into a fanatic monster-that will blow up this region for centuries. This is one hell of a mess Bush has created I'll tell you and no one will like the results.

I hate to tell my friend but Bush is going to do even worse! From the beginning it was obvious what Bush's real intentions are in the middle east. He needed a reason to get back in there and 9/11 gave him the excuse and the Patriot Act the power to abuse in doing it. It was obvious in his march to war in Iraq that he was going to say whatever he had to in order to get there and he will do anything to stay there.

It was obvious too from the beginning that He would do anything to aid Israel as they endeavored to give themselves a buffer zone in their quest for a new middle east order and now that he was in the middle east he would do his share and will not leave until his goal of new middle east order was met or so he thinks. He knew from the beginning that Iraq would erupt in civil war and most likely be partitioned and most certainly end up as a war between Sunni and Shiite before Iran and Saudi Arabia got involved and it spread throughout the entire middle east.

It is important to remember that and the fact that Bush has thrown Saudi Arabia a bone in saying he will supply them with weapons in the future. He is placating them and Egypt until he can further his plan for new middle east order. With 3 carrier Battle Groups in the Gulf and France's Charles De Gaulle at the mouth he is prepared to act as you hear the drumbeats to war coming from Iran and Bush. Bush has Iran essentially boxed in now.
Bush has now announced that he has no intention ever of leaving the middle east so someone's desires in that Koran Hoax are going to come true and there will be some who rejoice but it will only be temporary and then the reality of the horror Bush has created for the middle east will set in.

Before Bush went after Iraq he had designs on Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt when all is said and done. We are all observing age old hatreds play out and Sunni against Shiite, Persian against Arab hate is only serving to play into Bush's hand. No one is going to like the way this turns out and we must stop this somehow!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

23 comments:

Naj said...

Jim,

I advise you to take ANYTHING Amre says with a BIG grain of salt.

Sophia is a very respected scholar and she is profoundly knowledgeable. But Amre is a bit ill.

His hatred for Persians is pathological.

There is no deep hatred between Arabs and Persians. At least that is not how Persians feel. Persians really do not care much about Arabs. The most they do is to snob Arabs (rather culturally) not to hate them.

In the interest of my time, and as I am quite busy, I do not want to engage with Amre in a convrsation. However, an egyptian frind of mine has documented Amre's hate vendetta (especially against me). I will share that document with you.

cheers
Naj

Naj said...

Jim, one little suggestion:
you may want to put the statements in the post that you have borrowed from amre in a different font. This way, they apear as your hateful anti-Iranian opinions :)

Amre El-Abyad said...

Jim

I assure that nothing perconal is involved.....When i talk i base my arguments on well-documented, well-resourced facts. Naj's wats it sound like a perconal issue so as to undermine the coreline of the entire middle eastern problem for both Arabs and the U.S, which is, the Iranian criminal role in Iraq.

As you most probably have notivced I never refer to anyone in percon in my argument with you as friend.....as I enjoy makling friends from all over the world. However, everytime i discuss some public issue with you , she comes and unjustfiably invokes my name.
That is all.

Of course she must say there is no hate between Arabs and Persians.....it is all to divert attention from the the main point......

If you want I can present you with hundreds of documents from arab journals, blogs, independent and oposition news papers and digital TV networks- that stress the points I have been discussing with you ........

an average patriot said...

naj
I appreciate that. I just wanted to show the feelings that are out there. One thing I remember from my childhood applies here for sure as far as anyone that thinks it is a good thing in having Bush go after Iran and that is be careful what you ask for you may get it!

an average patriot said...

naj
I never thought of that. I will do that. I don't want anyone to think those are my thoughts though I have heard them voiced by more than Amre. Actually I have seen some on the news. I will say that Sophia did agree with you as to the history of Sunni and Shiite division,

an average patriot said...

Amre
naj admits there is hate between Arabs and Persians. She just feels you go overboard. Myself I know the feelings are there and I know Bush is using them. My thought on it as for wanting Bush there knowing he will not leave ever is Be careful what you ask for you may get it.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Well Jim

Sophia is very respectful fair and square lady-I may disagree with her on the method but eventually herslf and me share the same values and feelings......by the way , she agrees with me regarding the sunni and shiite issue. However she finds Naj's interpretation of the appearance of Islam more accurate.

Anyway, the view I presented to you about the origin of Islam, I copied from the french orientalist Maxime Rodinson......who is must read for anyone interested in Arab/Islamic studies

an average patriot said...

Amre
I just caught that about the proof. I have seen them often because I read middle eastern papers too. You need to get all views to see the total picture and I try to do that. I happen to enjoy the repartee.
I like to hear all sides and I want people to see how everyone feels and will be affected.
My opinions are unaffected by anyone elses so all of you just keep your feelings coming.

an average patriot said...

Amre
I appreciate your added input on that. It shows me that you are trying to be fair in your analysis. I know the animosity is there. I think it comes with intense Religious feelings. You can tell me if that's true!

Larry said...

General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, has always shown exceptional skill in impressing American politicians and journalists with his military abilities. Today he will be listened to with immense respect in Congress as he reports on how far the "surge" – the increase in the number of US troops in Iraq by 30,000 – has positively affected the war in Iraq.

It is a measure of Petraeus's political skills that he was promoted to his present position despite being responsible in part for two of the greatest debacles of the Iraq war. In 2003/4 it was Petraeus who was in charge of securing Mosul, the third largest Iraqi city, from the insurgents, and his strategy of conciliating the Sunni and former Baath party members was lauded by the US media. But nine months after he left, the insurgents captured Mosul; the police appointed by Petraeus fled or changed sides, and $41m worth of weapons were lost.

In the same year Petraeus was given the crucial job of overseeing the training and expansion of Iraq's new army, and again he produced glowing reports of progress. But three years later the army he was charged with turning into an effective fighting force is notoriously incapable and corrupt. In addition, Petraeus failed to observe that almost the entire Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2bn was being embezzled, and Iraqi soldiers were forced to rely on obsolete and inadequate weaponry.

It is the discrepancy between General Petraeus's performance as a general in Iraq (he had seen no combat before 2003) and his rapid elevation to overall US commander that has led his critics to portray him as a courtier-soldier whose victories are won in TV interviews or in Washington.

The real Petraeus.

Larry said...

if the President means by ordinary lives families essentially living locked up in their homes in almost perpetual darkness, without refrigeration or perhaps constantly struggling for ever more expensive gas to run generators, if he means waiting in their homes wondering if government death squads will drag them off and torture them and execute them, if he means living in sectarian cleansed neighborhoods where people who were your friends have had to flee, if he’s talking about living in communities that are protected by militias, then yeah, life’s returned to ordinary.

Michael Ware- CNN

an average patriot said...

Larry
To me Petraeus is a Republican Politician in a military uniform and with the background. He has done a great job fascilitating this debacle so Bush can keep our military there for generations. Petraeus like Gonzo has done his share in allowing Bush's new order mess and none of them deserve accolades.

an average patriot said...

Larry
You know, as you point out,that like every accomplishment that isn't is so much BS and I refuse to believe that after all this time he just continues and gets away with it. Why do we continue to be powerless?

Sophia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sophia said...

Jim,

I think we have to separate what is ideological rift from actual hate. The rift between sunnis and shias was there from the beginning but there is no hate. Spin, yes. I think AhmadiNejad's rethoric about Palestine is actually damaging the Palestinian cause in Iran (but serving well Ahmadinejad,s popularity across the Arab world) because Iranians do not want to wage war with the US and Israel because of Palestine, although they are sympathetic to the cause. I understand that.
I think also that if AhmadiNejad was able to score points in the Arab world and the shia Arabs, it is because Saudi Arabia, who owns most Arab media, has been waging a sectarian war on Iran and the shias while not doing anything for the palestinian cause, only harm in my opinion. They started it through Saddam, the sunni, and when they realised that Saddam, despite US help, was not able to overthrow the mullah regime, they let him down and are now espousing Bush's sectarian policy in the ME.
Saudi Arabia has lost the hearts and minds of Arab faithfuls and citizens, the same people whom it is supposed to represent as a religious authority. It has even lost the hearts and minds of its own citizen who are very critical of the royal family. This is a very backward family and a very backward regime.
They know, since 9/11, which is a kind of internal revolution against the royal family waged on a foreign soil, that their only hope now for surviving the rift between them and their 'subjects' is to fan flames of hate between sunnis and shias.

But it will not work this way. The most successful religious leaders in the Arab street now are shias, and not sunnis.
There are convergent interests in waging a war against Iran between the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even since its inception, SA's royal family has worked against Muslim and Arab interests and for its own interest and survival as a royal ruling family. I have a post on this, it is in my permanent links (selection of articles) 'the Lawrence of Arabia syndrome'. It is the Saud family who 'sold' Palestine to the zionists.

Now for Persians and Arabs, they are very different. The fact that some Arabs are shias, and most Persians are, do not erase the difference. Their histories are fundamentally different and also their languages. I know that some Persians might feel contempt for Arabs, but I am not of that mentality and I don't resent that. This kind of national pride pitted against another nation or ethny can be found everywhere and is a bit stupid and folkloric in my opinion. We are all human beings.

One has to remember that ideological rifts do not necessarily translate into hate unless hate is provoked and spinned.
I am from the opinion that a war against Iran is criminal, as was the war against Saddam, and enhances the risk of inflaming the whole ME.

an average patriot said...

Sophia
I do agree with you. I was using the word Hate to represent the Rift between Sunni and Shiite. I actually do not know the feelings they have towards each other. I only hear of the intolerance of the sects to each other at least by leaders and hard liners.
I have found that the average citizen of every nation is very tolerant of others and wants peace and prosperity and only to not be bothered.
I don't know about damaging the Palestinian cause but I do believe Ahmadinejad has gained favor in defending the Muslim Religion. I think even Sunni Muslims would rally behind Ahmadinejad when Bush attachs Iran as I believe he will.
Saudi Arabia has alienated many of their own citizens and at any rate without a doubt all Iranian citizens at least would rally behind Ahmadinejad even though many may disagree with him now.
You know, what you say about Saudi Arabia fanning the flames of sectarian violence to save themselves makes total sense.
It has been my contention from the beginning that the sectarian civil war Bush created in Iraq that is being supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia as was expected, will engulf the entire middle east. Then it will get worse.
It amazes me and I thought about discussing this today, that Bush is talking draw down while he is proposing to put our military in the middle of that exploding sectarian violence for generations to come as a Korea style force.
That supposed draw down is not the beginning of the end for our military interference but the beginning of the end for our military if it happens. It would be an enormous Custer's last stand.
I do believe that a war against Iran is as criminal as the war against Iraq bu It will happen. It is only one reason why Bush attacked Iraq in the first place to get our military in the middle east.
It is why he wants to leave us there. The whole middle east will be enflamed as was obvious from the beginning and it is sickening hearing the lies and watching this unfold. It will happen!

an average patriot said...

Sophia
I stand corrected and I am glad I have the benifit of you're middle east knowledge as well as others.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Jim

Noone can deny the extent of the Saudi influence- but I would like to emphasise based on facts that..Egypt is the cultural and political capital of the Arab world Egyptian cinema and dialect is the joker in th Arab world..in terms of technology and industralisation Egypt surpasses Iran by far..according to staregic centres in Washington and London, Egyptian military industires and experience is second only to Israel, yet we dont make so much of childish rhetoric like Najad because noone ever paid a heavy toll of blood and money and delayed developmental plans for sake of Arab causes except Egypt and only Egypt ....7 bloody wars in 25 years is enough for the time being..........
It is enough to mention that Egypt was ahad of china south Korea and very well expected to catch up according to western resources in the sixties,hadn't it been for our noble ideals where we spent our money fighting an Irani-like imams regime in Yemen and bomabarding the saudis who were financing the Ben-ladinsh Imams to cause progressive change and defying super powers for the sake of Arab causes

Saudi Arabia can not take the lead for culturl and demographic and strategic reasons.........


About Sadam I have to disagree with Sofia............The Khomeini revolution wa calling for toppeling the Iraqi regime, Bani sadr the second man in Iran in 1980 said that revolution will only stop in Bahgdad........

what is most dangerous about that fantic revolution was that, Iraq which was acording to U.N and unicef reports engaged in themost ambitious modernisation project in the Arab/ Muslim sphere........The Iranians were resiting through their fantic Ideologies the Iraqi attempts to modernie the secularise the underdeveloped south..........Iraq had no choice but to break Iran for the sake of development...

As for me I havent got a single drop of racism inside me........unfortunately most Arabs especially Egyptians and Iraqis and ALGERIANS despise Iranian culture consider it to be very recent compared to the ancient arab civilsations...... a fake imitation of the Arab original one.........also most Arabs find Iranian contempt worthy and fantic.

Iam not like that...I would have loved to make Iranian Friends and vist Tehran.......my problem is mainly with regime and Iranians who want impose themselves on Arabs by force.

P.S Sada was not a sunni, he was a very secular athiest who wanted to secualrise and drag ENTIRE IRAQ BY FORCE, that is why he was forced to fight the mullahs of Iran.......the main aim of his war was not bringing down the mullahs, instead it was breaking Iran so it would stop interfering in the Arab world

Amre El-Abyad said...

also, Ahmadinajad may have populöar in Arab street during the Hisbollah war 2006........but now thanks o the honest Arabs and free thinkers........Najd is number one enemy in the Egyptian street, Saudi street and majority of Iraqis as well as the mojority of Lebanese.............No one will rally after him anymore in the Arab street

an average patriot said...

Amre
I have to tell you, you guys have educated me and I am humbled. Regardless of varying interpretations your compassion and knowledge far outweighs mine or most Americans.
Right now I am leaning on discussing today conversations based on yesterdays story and the terrible results of what is now etched in stone for the middle east.

an average patriot said...

Amre
I don't think it would be a case of rallying behind Ahmadinejad. I think it would be a case of rallying behind the causeof Iran as a country and Muslims as a people. That to me has been Ahmadinejad's goal!
By the way, I will look it up but who is najd or is that an acronym for Ahmadinejad? I have to wonder too what a permanent American presence will do to unite the middle east?

Amre El-Abyad said...

oh I appologize for the typing mistakes.......najd was Najad....

Iam not sure of course, but I think Iran has lost the battle in the Arab street- the anti-Iranian propaganda is very strong

the majority of Arabs citizens are struggling to make what is the minimus of a living.I dont think they will ever rise. As for oil inflated ones.......I don't think they give dam about whatever is happening around them

an average patriot said...

Amre
No problem, that's what I thought but I wasn't sure. Anyway, you could be right about Ahmadinejad. I think he has gained favor in the eyes of Muslims saying he was standing up for them.
However, the closer he comes to military confrontation with the US I don't know. I just posted todays story you for one could answer for me from your point of view.