At least 20 killed at Yemen wedding party

Yeah but he (Muhammed Bin Salman) is Jared Kushner , Trump and Israel's BFFs right now, so it's all Kosher.

We could take that international parlor game of guilt by association to all kinds of incredible extremes.

Better not to play that way, and make things as clear as possible.


Absolutely.

While I seriously empathize with everyone who has suffered and died in this conflict.

What is your solution?

Should we not having a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen to begin with? Who is the black hat/white hat here?

I do not understand the conflict and seek some clarity.

As a beginning of where I stand in my opinions I submit the following:

A. My first concern is that there is no safe haven for radical Islamic beliefs. The danger to civilization and other innocents is too high to let extremism flourish in the troubled region.

B. My second concern is not killing/forcing upon simple people the stupidities of our same civilized world.

These views are not in conflict.

I would prefer to leave the Muslim World alone culturally and for the most part economically, in exchange for not having shopping mall assassinations, crucifixions of non-believers, or any attempts to outlaw thong bikinis.
 
While I seriously empathize with everyone who has suffered and died in this conflict.

What is your solution?

Should we not having a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen to begin with? Who is the black hat/white hat here?

I do not understand the conflict and seek some clarity.

As a beginning of where I stand in my opinions I submit the following:

A. My first concern is that there is no safe haven for radical Islamic beliefs. The danger to civilization and other innocents is too high to let extremism flourish in the troubled region.

B. My second concern is not killing/forcing upon simple people the stupidities of our same civilized world.

These views are not in conflict.

I would prefer to leave the Muslim World alone culturally and for the most part economically, in exchange for not having shopping mall assassinations, crucifixions of non-believers, or any attempts to outlaw thong bikinis.

My solution would be to pull out of the Middle East and try to repair our diplomatic relationship w/ Iran while refusing to deal with the GCC countries until they get their Wahhabi bullshit under control. Absolutely refuse to be a hired gun for KSA and a patsy for Israel.

While neither country is innocent, SA clearly wears the black hat in this situation (and has for the last 20+ years).
Here is a good documentary that details the history of the Iran/ Saudi tensions: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/bitter-rivals-iran-and-saudi-arabia/

The more current situation in SA is much more cut and dry.

Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been established in Yemen since 2009. You'll read that the Saudis suppressed them, but we know that they actually fund AQ and Wahhabi terrorism in general. And you'll notice that SA did nothing to uproot them from Yemen.

Only after the Houthis (from a sect of Shia) revolted did SA get their hands dirty. ]Here is some background on the Houthi revolt.
They've employed siege warfare (a war crime), and U.S. cluster bombs (banned by 108 countries, but not the US (which still has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world) leading to the greatest humanitarian crisis of the modern era. Not only that, but they are deliberately targeting ancient artifacts like AQ and IS are known for.

But this is marketed as a proxy war between Iran and Yemen. Where is Iran in this?

And of course we can go back even further to the USS Cole and 9/11 to see Saudi's fingerprints everywhere. There spread of Wahhabism all over the world, their funding of terror.

Your concern about a safe haven for terrorism is valid, and your desire to leave the ME alone is not only not in conflict with that, but synergistic IMO.

number-of-terrorism-fatalities-by-region_v1_850x600.svg


Looks like our War on Terror is having a paradoxical effect. And very few if any of those attacks are Shia (Iran) btw.

I could go into more detail. There are guys like @Fronk or @Sauron who are more on point with details than I am. They might be able to add some nuance to this.
 
When I first saw Israel and SA getting in bed together, I knew immediately that it would not end well.
Can nobody be responsible for their own shit with you must it always be Israels fault (Don't bother answering I know how your Jihadi brain works)
 
We could take that international parlor game of guilt by association to all kinds of incredible extremes.

Better not to play that way, and make things as clear as possible.
Since Kushner, the Israel lobby and the US are backing the Saudis with weapons and diplomatic cover, they are guilty. This isn't an extreme link, it is pretty dam clear and straightforward.
 
Must... attack... U.S... every... chance... I... get...

...

because my country fucking sucks and i'm jealous.

-Rod1
Who do you think is giving the Saudis most of the weapons to bomb Yemen. And intel .
 
My solution would be to pull out of the Middle East and try to repair our diplomatic relationship w/ Iran while refusing to deal with the GCC countries until they get their Wahhabi bullshit under control. Absolutely refuse to be a hired gun for KSA and a patsy for Israel.

While neither country is innocent, SA clearly wears the black hat in this situation (and has for the last 20+ years).
Here is a good documentary that details the history of the Iran/ Saudi tensions: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/bitter-rivals-iran-and-saudi-arabia/

The more current situation in SA is much more cut and dry.

Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been established in Yemen since 2009. You'll read that the Saudis suppressed them, but we know that they actually fund AQ and Wahhabi terrorism in general. And you'll notice that SA did nothing to uproot them from Yemen.

Only after the Houthis (from a sect of Shia) revolted did SA get their hands dirty. ]Here is some background on the Houthi revolt.
They've employed siege warfare (a war crime), and U.S. cluster bombs (banned by 108 countries, but not the US (which still has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world) leading to the greatest humanitarian crisis of the modern era. Not only that, but they are deliberately targeting ancient artifacts like AQ and IS are known for.

But this is marketed as a proxy war between Iran and Yemen. Where is Iran in this?

And of course we can go back even further to the USS Cole and 9/11 to see Saudi's fingerprints everywhere. There spread of Wahhabism all over the world, their funding of terror.

Your concern about a safe haven for terrorism is valid, and your desire to leave the ME alone is not only not in conflict with that, but synergistic IMO.

number-of-terrorism-fatalities-by-region_v1_850x600.svg


Looks like our War on Terror is having a paradoxical effect. And very few if any of those attacks are Shia (Iran) btw.

I could go into more detail. There are guys like @Fronk or @Sauron who are more on point with details than I am. They might be able to add some nuance to this.

Thank you for your take on things.

There are a few things I might disagree on here or there, but they are not relevant.

However, this does pose the relevant and troubling question:

How is it possible to leave the Middle East alone in your estimation? Certainly I would like to have stayed out of Syria despite the tragedy there, that goes double for Libya, and a lot of other ancient hatreds the U.S. is eager to intensify with modern warfare.

All the while, we invited Russia back into the mess, and Russia is ecstatic about making a bigger mess of things. Who could blame them? It fits their long term view of the world.

All coming down to the big, big question - How to disengage from meaningful places like Saudi Arabia, the biggest trouble maker internationally in terms of Islam, Iran who is probably a solid number two, and the petro-rich region without threatening international trade?

Without the United States aegis, the Sunni/Shiite regions will further militarize, turn to Russia and China for that protection, and will accelerate their pursuit of the atomic bomb.

International trade is not a hollow appeal to vague economic dangers either. We are talking about the world's best, most efficient, and widespread means of energy. The amount of capital tied up in the movement of these goods is staggering. The poverty levels, incomes, and potential starvation of a lot of people is invested in using oil to get these things to market.

Should that be entrusted to bad actors, should bad actors further weaponize and fight proxy wars over the Shiia/Sunni divide without Western interest involved? As much as America messes these up when overzealous, I think a tempering of the zeal and face saving is much better than too widespread of a withdraw.

Would you disagree, and if so, why?
 
Since Kushner, the Israel lobby and the US are backing the Saudis with weapons and diplomatic cover, they are guilty. This isn't an extreme link, it is pretty dam clear and straightforward.

That's fair enough.

Do you have any sources on the influence of the Israeli lobby and Israeli weapons movements to Saudi Arabia?

I am not asking as a "gotcha" kind of thing or out of skepticism, I rather want to see that part of the picture.

I understand the American media is not excited about talking about the "Israeli lobby" for a lot of reasons both good and bad, and that sources may be hard to find, so some strong circumstantial evidence would be fine.
 
Thank you for your take on things.

There are a few things I might disagree on here or there, but they are not relevant.

However, this does pose the relevant and troubling question:

How is it possible to leave the Middle East alone in your estimation? Certainly I would like to have stayed out of Syria despite the tragedy there, that goes double for Libya, and a lot of other ancient hatreds the U.S. is eager to intensify with modern warfare.

All the while, we invited Russia back into the mess, and Russia is ecstatic about making a bigger mess of things. Who could blame them? It fits their long term view of the world.

All coming down to the big, big question - How to disengage from meaningful places like Saudi Arabia, the biggest trouble maker internationally in terms of Islam, Iran who is probably a solid number two, and the petro-rich region without threatening international trade?

Without the United States aegis, the Sunni/Shiite regions will further militarize, turn to Russia and China for that protection, and will accelerate their pursuit of the atomic bomb.

International trade is not a hollow appeal to vague economic dangers either. We are talking about the world's best, most efficient, and widespread means of energy. The amount of capital tied up in the movement of these goods is staggering. The poverty levels, incomes, and potential starvation of a lot of people is invested in using oil to get these things to market.

Should that be entrusted to bad actors, should bad actors further weaponize and fight proxy wars over the Shiia/Sunni divide without Western interest involved? As much as America messes these up when overzealous, I think a tempering of the zeal and face saving is much better than too widespread of a withdraw.

Would you disagree, and if so, why?

Well, be don't leave 100%. We draw our troops out, but we work with Iran (whom we already have the nuclear deal with) and pressure the GCC to get their shit together.
Look who has been destroyed so far: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Other than Yemen, none of those countries were our allies.
What did our non-intervention look like prior to '02. Why would it be a big difference? Sure we'd have some more failed states, but our continued presence is just making things worse.

Another thing that predates our involvement in the ME, well our 2003 escalation anyhow, is the Sunni/ Shia divide.
Our presence doesn't keep that from blowing up, if anything it exacerbates the tensions.

As for Russia, they got involved because of Syria, a critical geopolitical and strategic ally of theirs. They've always been involved with Syria and Iran.

The only question would be Iraq. If we don't attack Iran, the two countries will probably merge one way or the other. Is that a reason for going to war against Iran? I'd say no.

Trade is probably even more complicated, but how are we facilitating trade now. I don't see how much would change if we pulled out.
But what we should be doing is modernizing our infrastructure to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. It keeps us from being handicapped by the ME and takes steps to address climate change.

The wrinkle is the petro dollar and how dependent our country is on the military economy - I think our economy is much more fragile than we are aware of and abandoning war could tank our economy. That is still not a valid excuse to continue the wars imo.
 
Pretty tragic, even if persay the wedding party had some terrorists or jihadis hanging around.

Can you imagine? You went to see someone you love marry someone they love, and then all your relatives and friends are blown to pieces without warning.

Not nice.



This is why some say Obana is a war criminal for giving the green light to drown strikes in the ME and south Asia and some kf those hit weddings.
 
The wrinkle is the petro dollar and how dependent our country is on the military economy - I think our economy is much more fragile than we are aware of and abandoning war could tank our economy. That is still not a valid excuse to continue the wars imo.

Boom

(although I disagree with your last sentence)
 
It was a humane airstrike. They didn't use those awful awful chemical weapons.
 
this was the set-up for the movie London Has Fallen.
 
I've seen some shitty wedding gifts, but this takes the cake.
 
Are you guys seriously joking about 'different culture' while America has the high score for wedding bombings? Remember those 39 women & teens and 8 children that got massacred by our government?
 
Back
Top