Saudi foreign minister tells Iran: "enough is enough"

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, khunken said:

Incredible that you keep posting incorrect (fake news?) views on subjects that you don't seem to have a clue about.

 

The EB link clearly showed that it was Israel's invasion of Lebanon that triggered Hezbollah's formation - by Lebanese Shi'ites not Iran as you keep falsely claiming.

Kinda like those who keep trying to support invasions as 'it's for the good of the invaded country'. Yemen - right....

 

Things like this rarely have one factor behind them. With all due respect to your EB link, is a stub (and somewhat misleading, at that) when it comes to making details clearer. It doesn't relate Iran's involvement and support of the faction that split for Amal, nor does it relate Iran's support of Amal at the time (no contradiction there).

 

Despite previous attempts to minimize the religious angle, it cannot be denied as playing a major role when it comes to Hezbollah and Iran's relations. A key component in Hezbollah's ideology was the adoption of Khomeini's concept of Guardianship. Or in plainer language - accepting Iran's Supreme Leader as a higher authority. This does appear in the Hezbollah's original manifest.

 

Some Lebanese were more eager than others to engage Israel, and obviously with many Shia residing in Southern Lebanon, they were represented. That Iran capitalized on this sentiment, and harnessed it to promote its interests is, whether you like it or not, a fact. That there was a convergence of interests, is also true - as to which one plays a larger role these days, we may hold different opinions.

 

Once more, it is quite interesting that posters riling against Saudi Arabia's meddling (which is not denied) in Lebanese affairs, are quite willing to grant Iran a free pass. Similarly, Hariri being the Saudi's creature is all wrong, but Hezbollah is repeatedly portrayed as being free of such affiliations - good luck with that one.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

Once more, it is quite interesting that posters riling against Saudi Arabia's meddling (which is not denied) in Lebanese affairs, are quite willing to grant Iran a free pass. Similarly, Hariri being the Saudi's creature is all wrong, but Hezbollah is repeatedly portrayed as being free of such affiliations - good luck with that one.

That's what I don't get?  Both Iran and SA are bad to the bone.  But to say SA is worse than Iran is just trolling.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

That's what I don't get?  Both Iran and SA are bad to the bone.  But to say SA is worse than Iran is just trolling.

 

We'll have to disagree. About it being trolling, that is. More like a partisan view, as in many other topics and issues. Saudi Arabia's style of doing things, and the effects it carries is worse than Iran's with regard to some cases, and the same goes for Iran's with regard to other instances. Guess its a lot to do about context, rather than being a black and white thing.

[stevenl]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Things like this rarely have one factor behind them. With all due respect to your EB link, is a stub (and somewhat misleading, at that) when it comes to making details clearer. It doesn't relate Iran's involvement and support of the faction that split for Amal, nor does it relate Iran's support of Amal at the time (no contradiction there).

 

Despite previous attempts to minimize the religious angle, it cannot be denied as playing a major role when it comes to Hezbollah and Iran's relations. A key component in Hezbollah's ideology was the adoption of Khomeini's concept of Guardianship. Or in plainer language - accepting Iran's Supreme Leader as a higher authority. This does appear in the Hezbollah's original manifest.

 

Some Lebanese were more eager than others to engage Israel, and obviously with many Shia residing in Southern Lebanon, they were represented. That Iran capitalized on this sentiment, and harnessed it to promote its interests is, whether you like it or not, a fact. That there was a convergence of interests, is also true - as to which one plays a larger role these days, we may hold different opinions.

 

Once more, it is quite interesting that posters riling against Saudi Arabia's meddling (which is not denied) in Lebanese affairs, are quite willing to grant Iran a free pass. Similarly, Hariri being the Saudi's creature is all wrong, but Hezbollah is repeatedly portrayed as being free of such affiliations - good luck with that one.

I don't think anybody is giving Iran a free pass.

 

But in a topic where SA is telling Iran to behave, it should be noted that SA itself is meddling.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I don't think anybody is giving Iran a free pass.

 

But in a topic where SA is telling Iran to behave, it should be noted that SA itself is meddling.

 

The context of my post was Lebanon and the Hezbollah, rather the ME as a whole. With regard to these, the poster I was replying to seems hell bent on ignoring or minimizing Iran's involvement.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Morch

[khunken]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

That's what I don't get?  Both Iran and SA are bad to the bone.  But to say SA is worse than Iran is just trolling.

Two points here.

 

Trolling is not just posting views contrary to your viewpoint. Using this nasty underhand method to try and get other posters' views removed is disgusting.

 

It is the same as your similarly underhand & arrogant attempts to get posts removed because they have links to sites not 'approved' by you. It's about time you lived with the fact that you're not a Mod anymore.

[Kinnock]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 5:07 PM, craftyhen said:

still getting over the fact that these 2 countries are in the world cup 

Not for long!

 

Should get knocked out just after England's traditional early bath.