Saudi-Iranian War?

[luiz]

I am a bit confused.
You were the first person in this thread to mention Israeli’s. Post 12
You responded to a post of mine (Post 33) mentioning Israel in your reply (post 34) where you make two mentions of Israel.
You have made six posts mentioning Israel, I have made two in reply to you and Thor has made one mention.
So you are talking about Israel and people are replying to you. If you do not want to talk about it do about bring it up.

I mentioned the fact that this terrorist organization targeted Israeli civilians, when talking about their terrorist attacks. I don't see why that should bring up a discussion of Israel, the IDF, or what have you. Unless you think terrorist attacks against civilians is a valid form of protest? Or that the conditions under which the Shia live in southern Lebanon somehow make it "less bad" to deliberately blow up civilians?

Hezbollah has murdered Israeli citizens in terrorist attacks in Argentina.

I mentioned the AMIA. That was an attack against Argentine citizens. Hezbollah has also conducted a terrorist attack against the Israeli embassy in Argentina, which was an attack against Israelis (though I'm sure it also killed locals, as always happens when you bomb an embassy).

But the AMIA bombing, which was the deadliest of the two, was a terrorist attack against Argentinian citizens. They were also Jews, which on the murderous twisted mind of Hezbollah makes them fair game.

 

[Silurian]

I mentioned the fact that this terrorist organization targeted Israeli civilians, when talking about their terrorist attacks. I don't see why that should bring up a discussion of Israel, the IDF, or what have you. Unless you think terrorist attacks against civilians is a valid form of protest? Or that the conditions under which the Shia live in southern Lebanon somehow make it "less bad" to deliberately blow up civilians?


I mentioned the AMIA. That was an attack against Argentine citizens. Hezbollah has also conducted a terrorist attack against the Israeli embassy in Argentina, which was an attack against Israelis (though I'm sure it also killed locals, as always happens when you bomb an embassy).

But the AMIA bombing, which was the deadliest of the two, was a terrorist attack against Argentinian citizens. They were also Jews, which on the murderous twisted mind of Hezbollah makes them fair game.

As you state you brought up terrorist attacks on Israeli’s. It would be strange not to discuss why they were attacked and how the terrorists that you introduced into the thread became murderously twisted. As I stated above if you do not want to discuss something do not introduce it.

From Wiki

On 8 March 1985, a car bomb exploded between 9[1] and 45 metres[2] from the house of Islamic cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah in Beirut, Lebanon, in a failed assassination attempt allegedly organized by the American CIA and British intelligence. The bombing killed more than 80 people and injured 200, almost all civilians.[1]
....
..
The bomb explosion, estimated to have been equivalent to 200 kg (440 lbs) of dynamite,[1] occurred in the western Beirut suburb of Bir al-Abed, outside an apartment building. It killed worshippers, mostly women and girls, leaving Friday prayer services at an adjacent mosque, and destroyed two 7-story apartment buildings and a cinema.[3]..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Beirut_car_bombing

On 8 March 1985, the CIA allegedly carried out a car bombing as reprisal for the Marine barracks bombing of 1983. The attack was allegedly an attempt to kill Sheikh Fadlallah, but the cleric escaped harm and the huge explosion killed 62, including Mughniya's brother, and wounded 200 in an impoverished and predominantly Shi'a neighbourhood, .[20] American writer Roger Morris alleges that the attack was a "turning point" in Mughniyeh's life and that afterward he "joined the terrorist arm of the increasingly militant political impulse among Lebanon's Shi'ah from which Hezbollah soon emerged, and as the resistance movement's chief of security and intelligence, he joined one of history's more vicious chain reactions."[20]
Mughniyeh was formally charged by Argentina for his alleged involvement in the 17 March 1992 bombings of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 and the AMIA cultural building in July 1994, killing 85 people.[29] In March 2007, the Interpol issued "red notices" for his and others' alleged roles in the attack.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imad_Mughniyah

From The Washington Post

Mughniyah was targeted in a country where the United States was not at war. Moreover, he was killed in a car bombing, a technique that some legal scholars see as a violation of international laws that proscribe “killing by perfidy” — using treacherous means to kill or wound an enemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b88682-968a-11e4-8005-1924ede3e54a_story.html

And so the circle of terror continues.

 

[Martin Alvito]

A cursory glance at the situation suggests that Saudi Arabia has more to lose from an armed confrontation than Iran.

Saudi Arabia is already having enough trouble balancing the budget, and the last thing they need is additional expenditures. It would seem to me that escalating the situation to armed conflict is not in the interest of the House of Saud, which makes their choice to escalate after the embassy attack (by terminating relations) interesting.

I could be misreading the domestic situation in Saudi Arabia, but I'd imagine that their government is betting that this isn't going to escalate to armed conflict given that an actual land war would require violating Iraqi (and probably Kuwaiti) territory, and that neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia can inflict project sufficient power across the Gulf to make purely air/naval combat much more than symbolic in function.

Even should that break down, both sides have powerful allies who might well be willing enough to intervene to guarantee their territory against air/naval incursions by the other side.

From the US perspective, it's a classic entrapment problem: back the client state and you embolden them against their adversaries. The good news is that the mechanics of the situation would seem to suggest that this isn't too terribly likely to get out of hand, and it might even be a blessing in disguise in that it could weaken the US defense commitment to Saudi Arabia without making it any less necessary for the House of Saud to permit the US to base there.

 

[caketastydelish]

The people in Iran are much more liberal. I'm Iranian myself so I know what I'm talking about...

But don't just take my word for it. Iran had an uprising several years back to get a secular government. What has Saudi Arabia done by comparison?

The USA seems to prefer SA because of oil. Once that runs out (or we switch to a different energy source) they are done.

 

[Archbob]

So do most Americans want intervention?
It doesn't really make sense. Americans seems to not like Muslims much, so based on that shouldn't most Republicans be glad to not intervene and let them destroy each other?

 

[plarq]

So do most Americans want intervention?
It doesn't really make sense. Americans seems to not like Muslims much, so based on that shouldn't most Republicans be glad to not intervene and let them destroy each other?

Well, Dubya the Texan is with big oil, thus they're friend of Saudi Princes. Maybe the Big Oil wing has some recession in the GOP?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

So do most Americans want intervention?
It doesn't really make sense. Americans seems to not like Muslims much, so based on that shouldn't most Republicans be glad to not intervene and let them destroy each other?

Most Americans-probably not.
Most American politicians-that's a different story.