Saudi Arabia says Lebanon declares war, deepening crisis

[dexterm]

The sucker sheeple of the west are being softened up again for another unnecessary war on the arms industry's and someone else's behalf. There has been increasing rhetoric and actions ever since Trump's emboldening visit to SA earlier this year.

 

"Saad Hariri’s resignation as Prime Minister of Lebanon is not all it seems"

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lebanon-prime-minister-saad-hariri-resignation-not-all-seems-quits-resigns-surprise-saudi-arabia-a8045636.html

 

"The resignation of Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, has not gone as smoothly as the Saudis wanted
To have Saudi officials now trying to dictate the make-up of another Lebanese government suggests that they want to take on the role played out for decades by pre-civil war Syria"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saad-hariri-saudi-arabia-middle-east-lebanon-mohamed-bin-salman-a8048141.html

 

 "Israel has instructed its overseas embassies to lobby their respective host countries in support of Saudi Arabia and its apparent efforts to destabilise Lebanon, a recently leaked diplomatic cable shows."

"The cable appears to be the first formal confirmation of rumours that Israel and Saudi Arabia are colluding to stoke tensions in the region."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/israel-instructs-diplomats-support-saudis-cable-171110134749905.html

 

"Amid threats by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel would intervene rather than allow Iran or Iranian-backed groups to establish themselves on Israel’s border, the sense of growing risk of conflict has been given added impetus in the recent convergence of Israeli, Saudi Arabian and US rhetoric against Iran."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/11/israel-leadership-talks-up-another-war-with-hezbollah-lebanon

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

The links supplied do not support nor even refer to the premise of your post. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the views that things will come to a head, one way or another, once the civil war winds down, go back a while. If anything, those pieces linked (even without pointing out the authors' standing creed and style) more closely relate that parties may come to a military confrontation, even if they aren't directly interested in such at this time.

 

 

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

The links supplied do not support nor even refer to the premise of your post. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the views that things will come to a head, one way or another, once the civil war winds down, go back a while. If anything, those pieces linked (even without pointing out the authors' standing creed and style) more closely relate that parties may come to a military confrontation, even if they aren't directly interested in such at this time.

 

 

>>The links supplied do not support nor even refer to the premise of your post. 
....Perhaps you should read the articles more carefully...

The premise of my post was that another war may be being manufactured in the Middle East on a pretext, and that as before Americans and its allies may be asked to take sides.

 

"Netanyahu's aim was to make clear to the Saudis that he can help. The message is, 'We have special relations with Western countries and we can help you advance your political goals against Iran and Hezbollah, which we share.'"

"The source said Israel would be hoping to capitalise on these concerns by persuading European countries to toughen their stance towards Iran, especially in relation to the Iranian nuclear accord."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/israel-instructs-diplomats-support-saudis-cable-171110134749905.html

 

 Daniel Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel, warned of a regional war if matters escalate with Israel on the front line. And you can guess whom Trump will be supporting and asking Western countries to support in the fog of war. Deja vu.

 

"In Israel, however, the talk of war with Hezbollah has escalated."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/11/israel-leadership-talks-up-another-war-with-hezbollah-lebanon

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

What your originally posted was alleging that the supposed "sheeple" (unnecessary derogatory term) "of the west", are being "softened" for for a supposed war to be carried out on the "arms' industry"'s (not appearing in the links provided) and and on "someone else's behalf" - as far as I'm aware, there's no indication that any Western country was asked or, indeed, have any inclination, to get involved in a war in Lebanon. As for the "sheeple" nonsense - stories actually get quite a lot of coverage on Western media, hardly all of it carrying Saudi Arabia's point of view.

 

The USA's position vs. Iran predates current events, rather than being their product. Western countries being solicited for political support of whatever in the ME is nothing new as well - all parties engage in such efforts.

 

The premise of your post is that you need to spin the story according to your long standing agenda, nothing more.

 

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

The USA's position vs. Iran predates current events, rather than being their product.

That would be news to the Obama administration.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

That would be news to the Obama administration.

No, it wouldn't.

Even under Obama's administration, the USA was oriented against Iran. Those not into nonsense games recall Iran being under rather restrictive sanctions and massive USA military presence in the Gulf. To put it in further context, the same general position predates Obama's administration as well.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

No, it wouldn't.

Even under Obama's administration, the USA was oriented against Iran. Those not into nonsense games recall Iran being under rather restrictive sanctions and massive USA military presence in the Gulf. To put it in further context, the same general position predates Obama's administration as well.

Yikes. Have you read the news lately? Trump didn't sign off on the agreement? The administration has openly allied itself with the Saudis against the Iranians. The Trump administration is imposing new sanctions. 

 

"A top Saudi intelligence chief said on Monday that President Obama failed to appreciate all that the kingdom has done to stabilize the Middle East, fight terrorism and support American priorities, hitting back after the president called Middle Eastern governments “free riders” on U.S. initiatives.

“You accuse us of fomenting sectarian strife in Syria, Yemen and Iraq,” Turki al-Faisal, a Saudi prince and former ambassador to the United States and Britain, wrote in an open letter published Monday in the English-language Arab News. “You add insult to injury by telling us to share our world with Iran, a country that you describe as a supporter of terrorism.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/saudis-issue-a-response-to-criticism-by-obama.html

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Yawn.

 

The Trump administration being more gung-ho about Iran, doesn't mean that Obama's administration was pro-Iran. The USA's policy, whether you like it or not, and whether you care to acknowledge it or not, was anti-Iran for many years now.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Yawn.

 

The Trump administration being more gung-ho about Iran, doesn't mean that Obama's administration was pro-Iran. The USA's policy, whether you like it or not, and whether you care to acknowledge it or not, was anti-Iran for many years now.

That does not mean this. Not even close:

" To put it in further context, the same general position predates Obama's administration as well."

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

That does not mean this. Not even close:

" To put it in further context, the same general position predates Obama's administration as well."

 

Yes it does. The USA's general position vs. Iran predated the Obama administration. Obama's administration did not fundamentally change this. That you imagine it did, has nothing to do with reality.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Yes it does. The USA's general position vs. Iran predated the Obama administration. Obama's administration did not fundamentally change this. That you imagine it did, has nothing to do with reality.

 

The nuclear agreement did not fundamentally change the USA's general position? Is "fundamentally" on your payroll, too?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The nuclear agreement did not fundamentally change the USA's general position? Is "fundamentally" on your payroll, too?

 

The nuclear agreement did not fundamentally change the USA's position vs. Iran. It was a realistic compromise, not an about turn of policy. The agreement features the stern inspection regime, and the ever-ready stick, precisely because of that. No idea what you thought you meant by your last comment.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The nuclear agreement did not fundamentally change the USA's position vs. Iran. It was a realistic compromise, not an about turn of policy. The agreement features the stern inspection regime, and the ever-ready stick, precisely because of that. No idea what you thought you meant by your last comment.

Trump strikes blow at Iran nuclear deal in major U.S. policy shift

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump struck a blow against the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement on Friday in defiance of other world powers, choosing not to certify that Tehran is complying with the deal and warning he might ultimately terminate it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa/trump-strikes-blow-at-iran-nuclear-deal-in-major-u-s-policy-shift-idUSKBN1CI24I

[Morch]

@ilostmypassword

 

What's your point, exactly? That the words "policy shift" appear in the headline? Well, it wouldn't be the first out of context cherry picking you've posted. The USA's stance toward Iran did not fundamentally change - Iran was still considered a hostile country under Obama's term as well. The nuclear agreement did not change that.

 

Now, could you possibly get back on topic?

Edited November 13, 2017 by Morch

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

@ilostmypassword

 

What's your point, exactly? That the words "policy shift" appear in the headline? Well, it wouldn't be the first out of context cherry picking you've posted. The USA's stance toward Iran did not fundamentally change - Iran was still considered a hostile country under Obama's term as well. The nuclear agreement did not change that.

 

Now, could you possibly get back on topic?

"Well, it wouldn't be the first out of context cherry picking you've posted." Whatever the general truth of that proposition, this time it clearly isn't. But I suspect you know that. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Well, it wouldn't be the first out of context cherry picking you've posted." Whatever the general truth of that proposition, this time it clearly isn't. But I suspect you know that. 

No, you were cherry picking. And you're derailing the discussion with petty off topic arguments, as you often do.

[ilostmypassword]

Clearly I was cherry picking. After all just because the headline says

Trump strikes blow at Iran nuclear deal in major U.S. policy shift

that doesn't mean that's what the content of the article says. After all, this is Reuters and everyone knows that the reason news organizations use Reuters' articles is because they misrepresent the content of said articles in the headlines. They've had almost 170 years experience in writing misleading headlines. Even before clickbait was a word, Reuters had it covered.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Clearly I was cherry picking. After all just because the headline says

Trump strikes blow at Iran nuclear deal in major U.S. policy shift

that doesn't mean that's what the content of the article says. After all, this is Reuters and everyone knows that the reason news organizations use Reuters' articles is because they misrepresent the content of said articles in the headlines. They've had almost 170 years experience in writing misleading headlines. Even before clickbait was a word, Reuters had it covered.

 

Clearly you are determined to derail this topic as well.

If you are still having comprehension issues do consult previous posts. Not too complicated really.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Clearly you are determined to derail this topic as well.

If you are still having comprehension issues do consult previous posts. Not too complicated really.

I cite links and data.You could easily have gone to the article and shown how I misrepresented. But you couldn't because I didn't. Nothing there that undercuts the headline. And it's ridiculous to assert that Reuters writes misleading headlines.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I cite links and data.You could easily have gone to the article and shown how I misrepresented. But you couldn't because I didn't. Nothing there that undercuts the headline. And it's ridiculous to assert that Reuters writes misleading headlines.

 

I wasn't asserting anything regarding Reuters, but rather to your own posts. That you routinely co-opt media outlets as if you're their representative, is pathetic. That you cannot stay on topic, or even refrain from derailing topics with petty arguments is regretful.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I wasn't asserting anything regarding Reuters, but rather to your own posts. That you routinely co-opt media outlets as if you're their representative, is pathetic. That you cannot stay on topic, or even refrain from derailing topics with petty arguments is regretful.

And the article about the permanent military base was not germane how exactly?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And the article about the permanent military base was not germane how exactly?

 

You're mixing your topics, I think.