Navy Cruiser Seizes Huge Iranian Arms Cache in Arabian Sea

1. How so?

2. The Saudi state is not a sponsor of AQ, AQ are trying to overthrow them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Saudi_Arabia

3. The Saudis sponsored AQ linked groups against the Houthis, making common cause, that's as far as it goes.

4. How exactly is El Saud worse than the Iranians?

5. My links ably specify how Iran sponsors terrorism in the last 10 years, didn't you read them?

 

My bad - you are correct - it was the Revolutionaries that were Islamist. Regardless - this makes no difference to the central point that was made - which you can now go back and answer.

 

That AQ and the Mother Caliphate have fought - does not change the fact that Saudi Arabia supports these groups. Then in 3 - you contradict your claim in 2) ?

What part of your statement "Saudi Sponsored AQ linked groups" does not contradict your claim" El Saud does not sponsor Al Qaeda?

It matters not who Al Qaeda happens to be fighting - that does not change the fact that Saudi Arabia is supporting Al Qaeda - committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Yemen.

I did not claim Iran did not sponsor terrorism. It is your claim that El Saud is not much worse that is abject nonsense. Yemen alone puts El Saud ahead of Iran.

When you add Syria to the picture - Supporting an Al Qaeda led proxy army - the other main groups being Al Qaeda affiliates or of the same ilk - such as ISIS (Led by the dude who formerly ran Al Qaeda in Iraq - ISIS)

Iran never supported any groups as nasty as this - or groups who did 1/10th of the nasty deeds as this group.

Putting the Islamic State/Al Qaeda group that took over most of Syria on par with Hamas - is a mindless rubbish. What was done there was far worse - by any sane and objective analysis.

What is your issue with the Houthi's that you support Al Qaeda (and the parent of Al Qaeda - El Saud) ?
What is your issue with the people of Syria - that you support Al Qaeda/ISIS in their fight to turn Syria into a strict sharia totalitarian nightmare.

 

I've lost track. What was your so called "central point"?

 

If terrorism is defined to include the use of violence to further political objectives opposed by the US to include resisting US or Israeli invasion and occupation, and is defined to exclude the use of violence to further US political objectives, including violence specifically targeting civilians, then obviously Iran is the #1 supporter of terrorism in the Middle East. And those who are allied to the United States can be somewhat exempted from the charge.

If democracy is defined as a system of government where people choose representatives who promote western cultural values and who do not resist US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, then obviously Iran is one of the least democratic states in the region. And while even that definition wouldn't make Saudi Arabia democratic, it would at least be closer to a 'democracy' than Iran

As for the 1953 coup, as with the hostage crisis in 1979-1980, both are a part of the history between Iran and the United States. How you spin them depends on what point you want to make. If the point is to explain Iranian hostility to the US by mentioning the 1953 coup, I think that example is now dated (it was relevant in explaining attitudes towards the US in 1979 but not today) and there are more recent examples of what fuels any Iranian hostility towards the US. If the 1979 'hostage crisis' is meant to justify US hostility towards Iran, then I would assume one could find more recent examples of actions taken by Iran to damage US interests or even inflict casualties on US servicemen.

But if the question is: what and who is at fault for the current state of hostility between Iran and the US, the answer to me is clearly: the same special interest groups which were behind the Project for a New American Century. These voices made me always dubious about the JCPOA, which I considered a fraud from the get go, and they have now made the majority of the people in Iran view it the same way.

There are those who will object and claim that even after the JCPOA, Iran was involved in a range of 'malign' activities damaging or hurting US interests in the region. Even assuming that Iran's role in assisting Assad defeat the terrorists and rebels trying to unseat him from power, or Iran's role in helping Iraq recapture its territories from ISIS, or in assisting the Houthis to stand up to the Saudi campaign against them, or in helping maintain a semblance of balance of power between Hezbollah and Israel, fits that characterization, what people don't realize (or don't want to acknowledge) is that all the conflicts which Iran was reacting to where themselves the product of the same policy blue-print which always had Iran as its ultimate objective. The blue print for going after Iran as the last prize or stop in the region always involved securing Iraq as a base for anti-Iranian activities, for moving Assad out of the axis of resistance, and for disarming and isolating Hezbollah in Lebanon. On the other hand, a genuine US commitment to play from the playbook of the Europeans, by trying to bolster Iran's reformist movement (many of whose leaders have corrupt links to European multinational companies who fund their activities through such links) would have in all likelihood eventually succeeded. If it wasn't succeeding as much during the Obama years, it was because even Obama was stuck between appeasing the same type of voices and forces whose agenda was never about 'moderating' Iran's hostility and enmity towards the US but paving the way for complete US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

In any case, there is only so much that can be gained arguing over spilled milk and who was responsible for spilling it. We are where we are today and the real issue is what will each side be doing next?

 

Ri-i-i-gt. Cuz we ain't ever done nothin' to piss 'em off.

*cough* Operation AJAX *cough*

 

Your claim is that taking the embassy by the students during the revolution against US Imperialism - was worse than the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by proxies of the US in Syria, Yemen, Iran, El Salvador, Guatemala and so on.

 

I never said it was worse. Just that taking an embassy is an act of war. While those acts you mentioned were NOT considered "acts of war".

Don't know why you assign so much of the responsibility for acts committed by "U.S. proxies" to the U.S. itself.

 

SIXTY SEVEN YEARS AGO!!!!!

 

What does 67 years ago have to so with the US leading a global effort to arm an Islamist Jihadist proxy army in Syria ?

You are desperately trying avoid addressing your claim - that the embassy hostage taking was worse than mass war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I don't blame you - it's a ridiculously absurd claim.

 

The hostage crisis was 41 years ago, and you still carry around obvious butthurt over that...

Is overthrowing a democratically elected government to install your own puppet regime any less an act of war than taking an embassy?

 

Yes. and Mossadegh wasn't "democratically elected" anyway. Some people that later made him prime minister had been voted into power but hardly all or even most.

 

Sixty seven years is a lot longer than forty one.

 

In which post did I make that claim?

You've never even proven the U.S. was guilty of any war crimes to begin with.

 

Balderdash!

El Saud sponsors Sunni rebels against the Iranian backed Shia tyranny. You just don't believe in democracy and freedom. Hamas are a terrorist group beyond the ken of every Sunni group. My problem with the Houthis is that they are anti US and anti Israel. The people of Syria want a democracy, which it seems they will be sadly denied.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about with respect to the conflict in Syria

You are however right about the the rebels El Saud sponsors being Sunni - the extremist Salafi variety - otherwise known as "Al Qaeda and ISIS".

Your claim that Saudi Arabia does not sponsor Al Qaeda - is a patent falsehood.

Running around claiming Hamas is worse than Al Qaeda/ISIS is not proof of claim.

You are the one who does not believe in democracy and freedom. You are against the people of Syria who were fighting for freedom. You support the Islamist Jihadist nut jobs that wanted to take those freedoms away.

But hey - each to his own - you are welcome to your opinion that Al Qaeda/ISIS are not that bad - I simply don't share it

 

They US is under investigation for complicity in war crimes as we speak for our support of El Saud in Yemen.

The US is allied with Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda in Yemen - who have committed horrible war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The US also armed the terrorist proxy army in Syria who was committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

You claimed that taking the embassy hostage was worse than any thing the US has done .. worse than arming and supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS while they were committing atrocity - which is what the US did.

 

You haven't explain why so much of the blame for the actions of others accrues to the U.S.

 

Let's see, Syria's strongest alliances are Russia and Iran? Freedom is their middle names.

 

So what are you saying - Those who armed terrorists - the extremist Islamist kind - with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment - bear no responsibility for the horror that resulted from this action ?

You just keep digging these deep holes ... I don't get it - the mental hoops you try to jump though to rationalize your support for terror, atrocity and war crimes.

But OK - You can say "we armed these extremist Islamist's led by Al Qaeda - but didn't know it would be that bad"

Unfortunately - Obama continued to arm them after we knew it was that bad.

 

I never said we had "no responsibility". But we don't deserve ALL RESPONSIBILITY either. In the real world, a nation never gets an opportunity to pick only saints to support. Many times you have to simply support any bum on the block who is willing to fight in a conflict that advances your interests.

By the way, what "sophisticated military equipment" has the U.S. provided to terrorists?

 

Both Russia and Syria - and Iran for that matter (although much lower on the freedom list) are far more free than Saudi Arabia.

Clearly you have no understanding of the difference between the land of El Saud - and Syria - with respect to freedom. Otherwise you would not have said something so silly.

Saudi Arabia is a Totalitarian Strict Sharia Nightmare - Syria is a Secular nation with a Constitution - a constitution that forbids Sharia.

No stoning women for adultery, death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. Women can drive cars and do not need permission from a man to be educated or take a make relative with them if they wish to socialize. Women wear short skirts and proper bathing suits. There is alcohol and dancing in bars - to "western music"

The strict sharia nightmare that all the towns in Syria descended into was far worse than even Saudi Arabia - complete with war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity - dark age style.

These "rebels" wanted to turn Syria into an Islamic State ... which is why the freedom loving people of Syria were the ones fighting for Assad.

Why are you apologizing for the radical Islamist's ? That is my question to you.

 

What do you mean by 'utter destruction?'

 

Get serious - you must have heard of TOW missiles being supplied to the rebels. We moved much of the stuff left over from the war in Yugoslavia (and some new stuff from there) - rockets, howitzers, military vehicles .. Tanks even .. you name.

This is just a snippet from one shipment. - lots of other stuff is in this article.

. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

They were given surface to air missiles - shoulder launched - perfect for taking out civilian aircraft - and other sophisticated stuff.

If we deserve enough responsibility to be investigated for complicity in war crimes for selling arms to Saudi Arabia - and supporting their effort in Yemen .. how much more responsibility do we deserve for Syria - a lot more. Complicity in a crime that is far worse than anything Iran has done.