continuing from the post below

Even for questioning the decision by the elected president to prevent the judiciary from contradicting him, as outrageous as it may look, it should be remembered that, to the best of my knowledge, the judiciary there was still the one that was created by the dictatorship.That decision was reverted later anyway.   

How shameful is it for a country to claim being such an advocate for democracy then let those who probably were counting on it thrown and continue to be in the prisons just for seeking that right like what happened in Egypt despite all what they did trying to fit what it wanted them to be?  

In addition to the earlier disappointment,  here  is part  of our dealing with the dictator who took power through a coup and abolished a real democratic process 

Shouldn't we at least have the decency to require that people who participated in the democratic process get released from their imprisonments and that the elected president, if not released, at least be allowed to leave to any country willing to offer him an asylum (and I really don't know why would some toppled, or were about to be, dictators did get such offer but an elected person would not). Suffering the failure of a democratic process shouldn't also mean they should additionally suffer those punishments for trying it.  We also need to at least tell the guy that he should at least allow people to leave the country instead of punishing those whom he doesn't like and subjugating people to his dictatorship like a Pharaoh. In general, it is one thing to be a dictator on a country and it is another thing to additionally imprison all its people there.  

And we probably should also tell the dictator to stop the crappy claim of fighting extremism there to justify his oppression to people. Even if we judged things in a generalized way and while ignoring the factor of how this country and others do not how t behave correctly, Egypt is far from being in need for his efforts to be moderated. Why doesn't he show the world how he can moderate himself away from oppressing his people, instead?

How can democracy spread in the middle east if those who want to join and be restricted by its rules gets disappointed like what happened to those in Egypt?

Now the dictator is not even trying to open a new page to the future. Instead, he continues to persecute those he accuses of connection to those past events and hold political prisoners.    

Some entities may choose to disappoint others in themselves and choose a less moral path if there is a benefit. The American Governments, on the other hand, may follow that path as if it is a requirement. They did that in Iraq with the uprising of 1991 leaving Saddam's army does things like those done at the times of the Pharaohs in reprehensibility. Contrary to what some may think about people like those in North Korea adding insult to the injury of being under a dictatorship, those people are further away than many if not most of those living in Western countries in believing these dictatorships. However, if you live all your life overpowered like those in places like these you may start to have the impression as if dictator overpowering is undefeatable. So even that factor alone may provide a good justification to why Iraqis did not move before the war.       

In 2012 the American government chose to apply on Egypt its strategy of disappointing others as if it is a requirement. They got an elected government and the power of the military  on different sides balancing things, yet our government here still chose to accept abolishment of the democratic process. Even if we assume they wanted to  count in or follow the choice of those who demanded the removal or did not want that government, do you think that those people would have accepted in exchange of that the abolishment of the entire democratic process making the military takes over?

Even if the American Government did not like the choice of the first election, had many of the people who did not vote earlier realized that it was a real democracy that is there to stay with no persecution for voting their choices, that government might not have gotten another term, but that was not given an opportunity to happen. 

The dictator sentenced the elected

The dictator of Egypt who took the power through military coup had sentenced the elected president to 20 rears in prison for alleged things he did to protesters during his term in 2012. I am sure things are much better now and everyone now can protest and without fear, right?

No one should be deceived into thinking that the courts there are real and that there is any amount of separation of power in dictatorships like these.

Also no one should confuse that with courts here being jokes and under control of corruption powers. This is a misuse for the empowerment of the continuous democracy not the absence of it. 

By the way , if I am not mistaken, didn't that military dictator promise elections that are very overdue by now? What happened to them? Or where they conducted under the very trust worthy supervision of his government?  

Those in Kenya killed people based on their inability to recite things from the Quran? Unfortunately for them, even reciting the whole Quran by heart shouldn't save them from being killed for killing those people. However, one can still be courteous enough to point out to them the verses calling on killing them for killing those people when recited.

Saudis cannot claim Iran being behind the actions of criminal groups like Al Shabab and Boko Haram because, as usual, they  are NOT Shia Muslims. Otherwise the Saudis can hardly be seen as wasting anything they can find about any Shia anywhere.

Those criminals in Kenya and Nigeria are roaming freely killing, abducting and enslaving people  but it is the Shia rebel in Yemen that is being attacked instead.      

Believe it, what you are seeing here is real - 2

They did not give a single thing to support why should those Shia in Yemen deserve to be treated different than any other internal opposition and be attacked by the Saudi coalition in their own country. Even if we ignore the question of what is there to support considering them like ISIS, I don't remember ISIS itself being attacked by an external military before they proceeded to invade and occupy a substantial territory in Iraq. That did not happen to them in Syria despite taking over and keeping under their control Syrian cities for a long time. As for whatever length of time Hizb-Allah interfered, and regardless of whatever attacks happened by ISIS inside Lebanon trying to drag it into the conflict, at least those were militia not the fighter air planes or military machinery coming from Iran, or any other country to attack ISIS. 

Despite the occupation of ISIS to significant Iraqi territory it was again fought back by a militia not air planes or military machinery crossing the border from Iran. Moreover, that militia itself, Badr brigade, originally the force of the assassinated Iraqi opposition Al Hakim, according to what I knew from a long time ago, is generally comprised from Iraqis who were oppositions from Iran or those deported by Saddam not Iranians. 

Lets also not forget how the Saudis sent their army to suppress the civilian Shia in Bahrain before any of this happened.

Believe it, what you are seeing here is real

They just want to jump on the Shia for reason or no reason. 

Externalizing of interest

This externalizing of interest to Iran by the gulf states for things done by any Shia group anywhere despite the clear existence of the self interest as a first priority for these groups shows the level of refusal to accept the existence of the Shia by these states .  

How credible is it that a group who are themselves dictatorships and takers of power through coups speaks that way about something that is in worst case another example of them?

The only thing that would make sence of that is because those in Yemen are Shia.

Looking from both ends

Even if we assume there is a good reason for worrying about Iran, the lack of support for connecting that to the Shia would still enable a strong argument that singling out the Shia suggests discrimination against the them because of their being Shia. But let us take a look at  the reason for all that animosity toward Iran by the like of the Saudi and their coalition. What is shared by all those countries? They are all majority Ssunny countries and/ or under control of Ssunnies. What about none Arab Muslim countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia? They are fine with them all.  So what is different with Iran? Iran is a country of majority Shia and ruled by Shia. This suggests very strongly that the animosity toward Iran itself is because of its being Shia and not the other way around. So here we see that the argument of the Shia being targeted because of being Shia is very strongly supported from both ends.

This is degrading to the world

I repeat again, this singling out to the Shia to be attacked despite their being within the limits of their own country, is a discrimination that is very degrading to the world to condone and should be refused now not fifty years later.

Did we see any atrocities or even hear credible claims about crimes against civilians committed by that group in Yemen that justify treating them this differently than other groups fighting internally?

But that shows the world the level of discrimination and hatred to the Shia there. They keep sounding the alarm about Iran             connection whenever things are about the Shia because they refuse to accept the existence of the Shia except if seeing as part of a foreign entity. 

I wish one news person who keep following that false alarm and participating in its bigotry, to explain, for example for our Yemen related issue here, why whatever connection Iran has there deserves to be mentioned as part of the news more than that which exists between the Saudi government and the other side there?

So if the question of how can justice and democracy come from a dictatorship like the Saudi's is not enough by itself we face in addition to it the question of their sever discrimination and singling out to one specific group. So does anyone think that interference by an entity like this is for the sake of justice and democracy or can really serve that cause better than keeping such entity away? Even as a proxy, how can anyone with intelligence and moral values trust the eyes and hands of such entity on the path and outcome there.

Despite how the suffering by the restrictions the Shia in Iraq imposed on themselves in following forms for justice made required by American projections stemming from their identity complex, instead of giving the priority to what they truly believe inside as the just thing to do, could have affected negatively their moral level in fighting, still, there is a huge difference in morality between the Badr Brigade and an entity like the Saudi's and their coalition in case the president here thinks that he discovered a proxy strategy from that situation in Iraq he wants to repeat. Anyone sees the two as equivalent despite all of the events and signs out there is either in extreme denial or extreme stupidity (although those might not be exactly separate).

Finally, don't tell me you are not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy there because that what distinguishes the objectives of a morally restricted democracy from any pile of dirt making a coalition to invade another country to suppress a specific group.      

Who blames them

Who blames them when they speak about Iranian control. Did anyone miss how easily Shia cities were taken by Iranians invaders with even military machinery left for them? What? The cities were not Shia cities and those were not Iranian invaders? 

The Saudi coalition

And the poor guys create coalitions thinking that adding one dictatorship to another would legitimize things like it does when it involves combining leaderships selected by the free will of the people. To many of them even Iran and its locked system sounds like a big jump in democracy. The Egyptian dictator also participated in that coalition apparently demanding his loyalty share in the process of taking down or preventing a democracy if that is really what those Shia in Yemen are doing.

Trap in Yemen?

I have not been watching the events there and don't have any special knowledge regarding the forces involved. However based on the timing and the ease with which the rebels suddenly started to achieve success it seems there is a good probability that the Saudi Government arranging with the opposing forces there to retreat tempting the rebels to advance in order to have whatever excuse resulting from that to attack and weakens those rebels. 

Only allowed on the Shia

This invasion of another country to suppress a specific group happens only to the Shia and twice by the Saudi Government. 

We keep hearing all the complaining and see all this reaction for the like of those bigotry claims regarding Iran's connection. Imagine what could have had happened had Iran done similar invasions and singling out one specific group to suppress.

The CBS news anchor conveyed from the Saudis or those with them the claim that the rebels there are worse than ISIS and I don't know on what facts that was based? Did they invade and occupy another country with a democratic system like ISIS did in Iraq? No they did not do that to even the Saudi dictatorship neighboring them. Did they carry attacks on civilians? On the contrary, it seems, as usual, the Shia are again the victims of attacks on civilians while holding themselves from responding in the same criminal manner and generalizing on the innocent in the other side.Did they abduct people and execute them like ISIS did? The answer again seems to be no. 

But , like what happened when going into Iraq with creating the belief that the world will end if Shia take power before they do anything , again we see that this group was prejudged from this stage to be worse than ISIS and that shows the level of bigotry toward the Shia there.

And what about the Shia in Bahrain demanding a democratic representation? Were those people also worse than ISIS when the Saudi army flexed its muscles on those civilians? What other country in the region shares with the Saudi government this  entitlement to interfere in another country against a specific group despite not being attacked itself?

If the democratic countries are allowing this for the sake of justice and democracy then there should be a specific objectives and path leading to that target and not simply just allowing the Saudi government to single out the group it hates to weaken.

A statement from a White House related person stated that they are not trying to build a Jeffersonian democracy there. Why not? That sounds to me like a discrimination. Democracy is for all people. The difficulty the US faced in Iraq is the result of projections stemming from an identity complex that caused you to even lack the capacity to act with adult recognition and discerning to things there.             

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims 6

I have just saw a news network labeling the rebels in Yemen as "Pro-Iran" and I wonder what makes them deserve such labeling more than any other group there to be called "Pro- Saudi"? 

    

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims 5

So now so many media are claiming that the Zaidy Shia in Yemen are supported by Iran. Did they do their homework on that or is it that they just don't care about whatever value remains in their reporting after the like of hacking stories by North Korea to Sony and China to some insurance companies? Did they see what deserves to be called "support" in general? Was whatever they found at a level higher than that of the connection of the Saudi Government to other groups for it to be singled out? 

This is the second time I see Saudi Arabia uses its usual Iran interference allegation as an excuse to do a direct and sever interference to suppress the Shia in neighboring countries. I try not to stand with injustice anywhere and by whoever.So if the Shia rebels in Yemen are against the justice, and democracy which follows from justice, side then I clearly don't stand with them. But lets not forget that the Saudi System is one of the worst on earth and does not give a rat's behind for those principles. So it should be made sure by the united nations and the democratic countries that any interference in Yemen should be for achieving the justice and democracy goals not any other thing the Saudi government want to do.     

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims 4

The audacity of these Iran effect accusations ,which suggests the level of refusing to accept the existence of Shia Muslims, is that , like the case in Iraq, are even applied on the majority by some in the minority before and after the US entered  Iraq and started repeating the same bigotry.  

You would think that eight years of war between Iraq and Iran in which it is said that a million people died would at least lower the need for such bigotry, but no.

By the way, the Shia in Iraq and Iran are sometimes called Shia Ethna Asharry which translate to Twelve Shia because they believe in twelve people assigned by God to be successors of the Muslims Prophet. The Zaidy Shia share two or three of those then diverge.    

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims 3

I don't know anything about fighting in Yemen or why the Zaidy Shia ,being the rebels according to the news,are fighting there. However, when the CBS News Anchor keeps saying that the rebels in Yemen are supported by Iran, does he have what support that or is it like other claims coming from Ssunny states oppressing to their Shia minorities while many others just repeat like parrots without real recognition to what is going on? Is it any different than the other alleged accusations like Iran's interference in Iraq or being behind the demand of the Shia Muslims for democracy in Bahrain? 

Anything Shia Muslims do is seen as must have been instigated by, if not for the service of, Iran. Not only these accusation are stated without real regard to the facts but many repeat these claimed suspicions without paying attention to the level of discrimination they suggest. In blaming things or claiming Iran behind everything the Shia do, those accusations suggest a bigotry to the level of refusing to acknowledge the existence of Shia Muslims. On the other hand it was the Saudi Government who sent troops to interfere inside Bahrain suppressing the Shia there and they seemed to also attacked the rebel in Yemen according to the news of this morning. I am not saying this to respond to a false accusation with another but I would be surprised if it turned out that the Saudi government and some other golf states are not really part or in support of playing this ISIS game and I am not throwing that just based on the character of these regimes. 

While if I discover that an accusation from Israel about the Iranian government being in support of some organization is wrong  I would think that I found some flaw, these accusations coming from the sources above, unless proven otherwise, have no value to begin with.

         

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims 2

I cannot depend much on my English listening comprehension, but it seems to me as if the CBS reporter from northern Iraq indicated or suggested in its first report on the issue that the Badr Brigade was created after the removal of Saddam. If that understanding is true then she probably should have done a better research. Badr Brigade is probably between thirty to thirty five years old. It was created during the Iraq Iran war as a militia for Iraq related purposes. It belongs to the Iraqi opposition in Iran  Mohammad Baqir Al-Hakim how was assassinated after returning back to Iraq shortly after the removal of Saddam from power. With the deportation Saddam did at the beginning of the war with Iran to any one his system classify as Iranian or from Iranian descents (I thought I wouldn't see something like that craziness happen in a democracy until I came here and knew about what the identity complex caused to happen to the people seen as Japanese during second world war and how the Supreme Court allowed itself to issue an opinion that makes so little sense, if any, regarding that), there was probably no shortage of supply of Iraqis for that brigade.  

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims

Continuing from the post below

Actually, because much of the media seems to be under Jewish corruption forces finding it hard to find similar level of morality sinking with Shia Muslims, when it comes to reporting on the Shia some times the news quality actively goes to the trash regardless of the source.The claim that Iran caused an explosion in a synagogue in Argentina that killed many Jewish people is one example of that.

It is trash news because regardless of the issue with Israel, being Jewish and being Israeli are perceived , at least there, as two totally different things.So that identity confusion shouldn't be projected on others trying to take a benefit of it.   

Another example seems to be Richard Angle carelessly, to say the least, reporting on NBC about a claimed massacre supposedly done by the Shia. Despite the very suspicious vagueness of that reporting, we were still supposedly to take his reporting on that against even the signs of all the killing the Shia sustained in Iraq while being so far from responding at the same dirty level and despite being the majority.

Moreover, are we also supposed to trust the capability to distinguish facts in Syria from a reporter who acted as if he truly believe that he was abducted by the dictator forces and saved by some resistance forces? 

Finally, the winner of trash reporting on the Shia seems to be that girl on CBS news reporting from Northern Iraq. She made similar reporting on a vague massacre and speaks about even more vague accusations of killing thousands of Ssunnies while throwing in words like "notorious" on the Badr brigade without any worthy justification reporting explaining what they did to deserve being called that. One time, she was asked by the anchor how she found the fighters from the Badr brigade and in her response she spoke about how those she was with showed her their Ssunny  leader trying to show that, referring to the alleged committing of a massacre, it wont happen again, leaving it undetermined if it was an admission by them regarding their alleged committing of that massacre or her understanding of what happened.

It is hard to find any place in the media even , or probably especially, the news that is safe from being penetrated by Jewish corruption forces.

By the way, I have a justification to use "Jewish corruption forces" as much as, if not more than, that of the CBS Anchor describing ISIS as "the Islamic terror group". However, in both cases that should not imply an implication for the rest of the group.            

The blood of Shia Muslims

Seems like the world is so accustomed to see civilian Shia Muslims get attacked and killed in dirty ways that it doesn't have to count much any more. Yesterday, an attack on the Zaidy Shia in Yemen, which is a different sect than the Shia in Iraq or Iran, killed over 120 persons in Mosques. However, apparently because they also share the Shia name, on the news I was watching yesterday it was not even mentioned with those at the start and barely caught some mentioning in the middle with the news anchor speaking about it as if it was part of tit for tat between the different sects. When was the last time a Shia Muslim made an attack like these? When did it happen ever?         

Secrecy of the jury and grand jury

I don't see how justice can be served better with the secrecy of the jury and grand jury deliberation and do not understand why would people in a democratic system would choose that.  I cant see any argument anywhere close to justify that secrecy in general and even more so with control by corruption forces like the way it is here.

I am not a fan of even the secrecy of the deliberation of supreme courts but at least they write opinions. If required ,even the identity of the juries doesn't have to be revealed to show the details of the deliberation and questioning by the juries. The entire deliberation can be video recorded then revealed without showing the image of any person in the jury or even his or her real voice. 

I don't see why it is assumed that recognition of the jury that their deliberation will be revealed would not only more probably affect their decision more negatively than positively but also to the level of offsetting the benefit of letting the outside world know how the decision was reached. How many people do you know would think: Oh, there is a camera on me, lets choose the incorrect path?

In democratic systems ruling is in the hands of people and that secrecy wastes that big power and is unnecessary major hindrance to the path of justice.

At least in the past, there was the reason of the cost and proof associated with keeping a person maintaining a record. All that has gone a long time ago and all what is needed now is to turn on a video camera and let it run.

There should be a real compelling reason ,which I think very seldomly is the case, for why the deliberation and similar actions by the juries should not be revealed when that happens and not assumed it to be the correct path by default.  

Taking a life because of an expression you are not even being badgered to see or recognize is clearly an injustice at the highest level no question about it (some lives in what happened in France were taken even without choosing to make such expressions). However, if we want to talk about the issue of tolerance to freedom of expression you might be surprised by how much of the intolerance you see in Muslim countries to such expressions  is about the form not the content. On the other hand I would see much less problem with the intolerance in western countries to any questioning of the Holocaust if that intolerance was as much limited to the sarcastic or joking type about the issue. Actually, the last time I checked it seemed that the stand against the freedom of expression by some Western countries in that goes beyond that of a tolerance issue to a prosecution and some writers are wanted just for expressing views questioning the Holocaust.   

Any Muslim thinks that his prophet accepts from him to shed blood or even inflict any kind of harm on another person just because of a cartoon, is showing a deep ignorance of the Prophet that very probably could exceed by far any ignorance of the maker of these cartoons himself about the Muslims Prophet.