I have no problem with the arab states fighting themselves, especially if it reduces the number or extremists. I was not surprised nor happy that SA said they would be pursuing a nuke if Iran did.... Still hearing Iran complain about this is funny. Hey stop interfering where we are interfering....LOL
Very interesting analysis here! http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/29/iran-saudi-arabia-yemen-conflict
The "you stink!" movement in Lebanon: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/middleeast/lebanon-beirut-protests-explainer/index.html
Protests continue. Can Lebanon take out the trash, i.e., dump the religious factions? http://abcnews.go.com/International...es-inquiry-lebanon-protest-dispersal-33399970
Care to state which religious factions the protests are against? A cursory look at the political makeup of the government shows that the coalition making up the March 14 alliance is made up of the Future Movement, a secular group supported by Sunnis with 26 seats, the Lebanese Forces, a Maronite Christian democrat party with 8 seats, and the Kataeb Party, a secular group supported by Maronite Christians with 5 seats. There are a few other parties in the coalition with one or two seats, but these are the main parties in government. Which of these parties currently governing the country would you like to go? The secular ones, or the Christian one?
The Shia ones, which you seem to have overlooked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_government_of_April_2013#Composition Amal & Hezbollah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_to_the_Resistance_Bloc They are dedicated to the destruction of both Lebanon & Israel, so I hope both go. Some Shias realize that their political leadership has got to go: http://yalibnan.com/2015/06/20/anti...sters-pledge-allegiance-to-the-lebanese-army/ Of course, there's a downside to even these protestors, as they also oppose secularists.
Of course. They do have an agenda. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Is-Hezbollah-behind-effort-to-hijack-Lebanese-protests-413409 "Hezbollah has sought to take advantage of the Lebanese protests against the government" ... "The present institutional paralysis – the lack of a president, delayed parliamentary elections, and a dysfunctional government – is suitable for Hezbollah as there is nothing that can challenge it while it is busy in the Syrian war" ... "governmental paralysis is good for Hezbollah".
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...ia-refugee-crisis-international-resettlement/ "The six Gulf countries - Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain - have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees." how neighborly.
So is Britain but we've given 200 places already (drop in the ocean and our policy is also quite shameful - you help break something you have an obligation to help fix it). Turkey has taken in millions, Germany has apparently taken 800,000 refugees (not granted leave to remain or citizenship but given safe haven).
the gulf states have all the resources in the world to help their fellow muslims. but i guess there are more important things to worry about like building soccer stadiums and waxing lamborghinis
Turkey obviously doesn't surprise me. Germany and Turkey have had ties going back to Bismarck, so I'm not terribly shocked there, either.
http://www.meforum.org/3391/kuwait-expels-Palestinians "the largest forced displacement of Palestinians from an Arab state took place in 1991 when Kuwait expelled most of its Palestinian residents in retaliation for the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) endorsement of Iraq's brutal occupation of the emirate (August 1990-February 1991). It mattered little that this population, most of which had resided in Kuwait for decades, was not supportive of the PLO's reckless move: From March to September 1991, about 200,000 Palestinians were expelled from the emirate in a systematic campaign of terror, violence, and economic pressure while another 200,000 who fled during the Iraqi occupation were denied return. By September 1991, Kuwait's Palestinian community had dwindled to some 20,000." http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countrie...ates-crisis.htm#sthash.qVE6tQBc.SUmRtk7J.dpbs
The rhetoric continues: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940618001025 If there is a God, may this Iran regime be gone within the next 25 years, along with this idiot.
They say all politics are local and to some extent, that applies to Iran as well. Except it is a bit more complicated still, as Iran needs to assure edgy foreign allies (e.g., Assad, Hezbollah) as well, some of whom might be privately anxious that the nuclear deal might see Iran abandon them. Anyway, these headlines might tell a bit of the story, but there is a lot more to it still. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/rouhani-iran-ready-hold-talks-syria-us-saudi-33596513 Rouhani: Iran Ready to Hold Talks on Syria With US, Saudi Sep 8, 2015 http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-s...ons-with-u-s-beyond-nuclear-issues-1441794871 Iran’s Supreme Leader Rules Out Negotiations With U.S. Beyond Nuclear Issues Sept. 9, 2015
It would seem that Rouhani has a better grasp of where Iran should go in the near future. Plus this illustrates a divide between the mullahs and the elected Govt. What is your take? Do you think Rouhani has enough influence/support to go against the mullahs and survive.
I favor arms length negotiations between Iran and the US in order to find and forge a grand bargain between the two countries. The problem is that "negotiations" with the US in the current context looks a lot more like capitulation to US demands and Iran's Supreme Leader (both to reassure edgy allies as well as to clarify the picture at home) is making it clear that the kind of negotiations that were authorized to conclude the nuclear deal will not be repeated on other issues. If the US signals a genuine willingness to negotiate with Iran on the host of issues in the region without any attempt to bully its positions on Iran, then I think it would be a huge mistake for Iran to turn its back on the opportunity. A grand bargain and reconciliation between Iran and the US on the terms I have in mind would serve the interests of both Iran and the US. But the US is no where near the position to accept what I have in mind, even if what I have in mind is not entirely consistent with Iran's posture and position on some issues either.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/scores-killed-crane-crashed-mecca-mosque-150911165411551.html Bin Laden Construction Company, on 9/11. One of the comment: "A muslim is so PLEASED to die here in Mecca because it is a holy place ... you will be blessed by Allah"
It's actually true. I know of people whose entire nuclear family died in a fire, extended family were happy that if they died it was whilst worshipping. Same with a guy (convert to Islam) whose mother converted to Islam just before her death and then died during hajj. His friend told me he was happy when he told him that she'd passed away during hajj. The way we see it your gonna die some place and some time, if you're gonna die it may as well be doing something good