Tobbaco

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point of the Pplitico article is this: on the one hand we are told that "apparently" the Crown Prince commands great popularity among the young. At the same time, there is this immensely popular preacher who espouses a particularly radical and ugly version of Islam, His speeches are given credit for persuading lots of young men to join ISIS. So perhaps the opinions of Saudi youth are not as monolithic as some of the press reports would have us believe. 

Moreover what you characterize as a "strange concession" may in fact not be so strange a concession at all, but rather due to fear of opposing this person? And if so, what does that say about the Sauid populace being "apparently" hungry for religious moderation?

And of course there are certain disincentives to voicing one's opinion in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia is to execute 14 young men for protesting – where is Theresa May’s condemnation?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-protests-execution-uk-police-training-saudi-forces-torture-theresa-may-a7878361.html

 

Political landscapes and public sentiment aren't always neatly ordered or follow clear singular paths of logic, sorry if this comes as a nasty surprise.

 

I don't think that there was a presentation such as you imply. If anything, trying to paint things as either/or (support for the Crown Prince vs. Support for an Islamic preacher you've caught wind of just now) is, if not "monolithic", then certainly simplistic.

 

IMO, what's on many of Saudi Arabia's younger generation's minds is change. Not necessarily a change married to a specific direction, though. So it may be that both a Crown Prince offering X, or an Islamic preacher offering Y, are palatable. Especially so when it comes to issues where X and Y coincide.

 

My post mentioned "connections", rather than a "concession". May want to reconsider your "argument", and perhaps polish away the made up addition some.

 

Once more, not quite sure what the "point" of the linking the new report.

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

No , that titel has been taken by Turkey's Erdogan.

 

Both over the top and off topic. Well done.

[boomerangutang]

It sounds like the guy skipped class the day the teacher taught 'may cool heads prevail.'

 

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

To be fair, that rule has changed, at least in theory. And it was before his time. It's not something he imposed.

If he's not in favor of banning Jews, then he should come out publicly against the rule.

 

16 hours ago, ezzra said:

Funny you mentioned that as now, the prince is courting Israel very hard to be his henchman to act as a proxy army to fight Iran and the Hezbollah... Oh how tunes chance when you need your enemy's enemy  to be your friend....

.....and Rich Saudis are buddying up with Jared, who is Jewish.  .....but that revolves around money and political power, and doesn't have to do with religosity.  Jared wants tubs of money. Saudis have tubs of money.  Saudis enjoy influencing US power players.  It all dovetails.

[dexterm]

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Calling for the destruction of the world's only Jewish identified state not counting Boca Raton is definitely Hitlery. That internet law is moot if there are actual grounds for the comparison. I wouldn't put it the same way but it's not completely bonkers either.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

That's a myth to call Iran Hitlery. Iran did not call for Israel's destruction. They called for the end of racist Zionism. But the mistranslation makes for better propaganda by US, Israeli and now the Saudis to stir up hatred of Iran.

 

From the Washington Post
 “Wipe off the map,” in other words, has become easy shorthand for expressing revulsion at Iran’s anti-Israeli foreign policy. Certainly attention needs to be focused on that — and Iranian behavior in the region. But we’re going to award a Pinocchio to everyone — including ourselves — who has blithely repeated the phrase without putting it into context.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html?utm_term=.5805c9244932

 

and from the Guardian

"Giving background to this week's controversy over remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, a story mentioned his previous call for Israel to be "wiped off the pages of history" (Britain walks out of conference as Ahmadinejad calls Israel 'racist', 20 April, theguardian.com). The translation of the statement he made in 2005, at The World without Zionism conference in Tehran, has been the subject of dispute. A more literal translation is: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", and this is the translation we should have used (as noted in Corrections and clarifications, 28 July 2007)."
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2009/apr/23/corrections-clarifications

 

 

 

[Morch]

50 minutes ago, dexterm said:

That's a myth to call Iran Hitlery. Iran did not call for Israel's destruction. They called for the end of racist Zionism. But the mistranslation makes for better propaganda by US, Israeli and now the Saudis to stir up hatred of Iran.

 

From the Washington Post
 “Wipe off the map,” in other words, has become easy shorthand for expressing revulsion at Iran’s anti-Israeli foreign policy. Certainly attention needs to be focused on that — and Iranian behavior in the region. But we’re going to award a Pinocchio to everyone — including ourselves — who has blithely repeated the phrase without putting it into context.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html?utm_term=.5805c9244932

 

and from the Guardian

"Giving background to this week's controversy over remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, a story mentioned his previous call for Israel to be "wiped off the pages of history" (Britain walks out of conference as Ahmadinejad calls Israel 'racist', 20 April, theguardian.com). The translation of the statement he made in 2005, at The World without Zionism conference in Tehran, has been the subject of dispute. A more literal translation is: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", and this is the translation we should have used (as noted in Corrections and clarifications, 28 July 2007)."
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2009/apr/23/corrections-clarifications

 

 

 

 

Comes down to the same thing, sort of like your own position. Spin away.

Don't think they actually shout "Death to Zionism" on their marches, or that this what they write on their missiles.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

It sounds like the guy skipped class the day the teacher taught 'may cool heads prevail.'

 

If he's not in favor of banning Jews, then he should come out publicly against the rule.

 

.....and Rich Saudis are buddying up with Jared, who is Jewish.  .....but that revolves around money and political power, and doesn't have to do with religosity.  Jared wants tubs of money. Saudis have tubs of money.  Saudis enjoy influencing US power players.  It all dovetails.

 

What rule would that be?

 

Saudi Arabia: Israelis banned, but Jews now allowed to work here

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-arabia-jews-now-allowed-to-work-here/

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Comes down to the same thing, sort of like your own position. Spin away.

Don't think they actually shout "Death to Zionism" on their marches, or that this what they write on their missiles.

No spin. Just fact checking and myth debunking.

 

There is usually a justifiable furore when Hitler [and by allusion The Holocaust..noted by JT above] is invoked to score a few cheap shots at the expense of 6 million Holocaust victims.

OP...
'"We don't want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East," the paper quoted him as saying.'

 

Strange silence from the Crown Prince's new buddies this time though, because of course it's a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

[Kiwiken]

Saudi Arabia threatens Iran with war. Seems to me the last Arab that did that did not fare so well?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

No spin. Just fact checking and myth debunking.

 

There is usually a justifiable furore when Hitler [and by allusion The Holocaust..noted by JT above] is invoked to score a few cheap shots at the expense of 6 million Holocaust victims.

OP...
'"We don't want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East," the paper quoted him as saying.'

 

Strange silence from the Crown Prince's new buddies this time though, because of course it's a case of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

 

Of course it's a spin. The accuracy and appropriateness of the Crown Prince's words (which I have commented on earlier) do not make Iran's position with regard to Israel any more benign or any less extreme. If you want to do the moral high horse thing, try elsewhere. As for taking cheap shots, your own comment seems to be just that...

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Of course it's a spin. The accuracy and appropriateness of the Crown Prince's words (which I have commented on earlier) do not make Iran's position with regard to Israel any more benign or any less extreme. If you want to do the moral high horse thing, try elsewhere. As for taking cheap shots, your own comment seems to be just that...

And on the other hand they do not make them any less benign or more extreme. In fact they do not make them anything at all.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And on the other hand they do not make them any less benign or more extreme. In fact they do not make them anything at all.

 

I'm pretty sure you think you had some clever point there, whereas in fact, it's just another prelude for one of your pointless nothing arguments.

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm pretty sure you think you had some clever point there, whereas in fact, it's just another prelude for one of your pointless nothing arguments.

No, it's just pointing out the spin you put on the Iranian position.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, it's just pointing out the spin you put on the Iranian position.

 

There is no such spin. You are either imagining it or making it up. Like I said, yet another prelude for one of your nonsense arguments.

[Scott]

A nitpicking, baiting post removed.  

[ilostmypassword]

Hezbollah, on the rise in Lebanon, fends off Saudi Arabia

...According to U.S. and Lebanese officials, Saudi Arabia forced Hariri’s resignation, shattering Lebanon’s coalition government, which included Hezbollah ministers. Saudi Arabia hoped the move would undermine Iran by paving the way for more aggressive action against the Shiite militants, the officials say.

Instead, it rallied Lebanon in support of its prime minister and cast Hezbollah as the stabilizing force.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/hezbollah-on-the-rise-in-lebanon-fends-off-saudi-arabia/2017/11/23/d9d92b1c-c961-11e7-b506-8a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.05013973a06a

 

For someone facing the Herculean task of reforming his nation, the Crown Prince has a positive gift for creating more problems for himself. Maybe he's secret Shiite?

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Hezbollah, on the rise in Lebanon, fends off Saudi Arabia

...According to U.S. and Lebanese officials, Saudi Arabia forced Hariri’s resignation, shattering Lebanon’s coalition government, which included Hezbollah ministers. Saudi Arabia hoped the move would undermine Iran by paving the way for more aggressive action against the Shiite militants, the officials say.

Instead, it rallied Lebanon in support of its prime minister and cast Hezbollah as the stabilizing force.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/hezbollah-on-the-rise-in-lebanon-fends-off-saudi-arabia/2017/11/23/d9d92b1c-c961-11e7-b506-8a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.05013973a06a

 

For someone facing the Herculean task of reforming his nation, the Crown Prince has a positive gift for creating more problems for himself. Maybe he's secret Shiite?

 

The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

 

Hariri's said the suspension of his resignation is temporary, and tied with some sort of dialogue regarding Lebanon's future. If this will come about and in which form, is yet to be seen. Whether or not it will have any meaningful results is yet another unknown.

 

The authors cite sources to the effect that Hariri's resignation "shattered" Lebanon’s coalition government. Other than this being incorrect (the coalition and the government are still in place, no special outbursts of communal strife), then go on commenting on how this didn't actually happen. Unless I missed something, a bit clumsy.

 

I doubt that Saudi Arabia expected or wished that Hariri's resignation would bring about instant political chaos in Lebanon. Public opinion in Lebanon tends to be negative with regard to anything that threatens the status-quo, or heralding the return of massive political violence. Bringing about Hariri's resignation wasn't popular to begin with, and if the situation was to quickly deteriorate, support would have taken a hit. Further, if things were to go south, Saudi Arabia's allies in Lebanon are at a disadvantage vs. Hezbollah. This applies both to organization and armed might, but also to the simple fact that the point man (Hariri) wouldn't be around.

 

I think that within limitations of existing military might and political power, things as they panned out were pretty much what Saudi Arabia could have realistically wished for. The whole affair highlighted Lebanon being used as a battlefield for the Saudi-Iranian proxy war. And yes, of course, it did highlight Saudi meddling in Lebanese affairs, but at the same time, turned another spotlight on Iran's involvement via Hezbollah.

 

Saudi Arabia's mode of engagement in Lebanon is mostly economic and political, whereas Iran's also incorporates a sectarian military angle. In other words, Saudi Arabia's actions (apart from the Hariri resignation thing) is somewhat more "acceptable" with regard to international views, and to an extent, domestic ones as well.

 

If (and that's quite an if) the current move ends with a solution which either limits, slows or prevents Iran's sectarian military support, that's quite a result from a Saudi point of view. If this involves a call for all parties to "leave Lebanon alone", and countries actually comply, it still a net gain for Saudi Arabia (considering "acceptable" involvement will not be fully curtailed). On the other hand, if Hezbollah digs in, and refuses to compromise, cooperate or find any middle way, it may be seen as the party harming the country's stability. Having Iranian officials opining that Iran's support for Hezbollah or its disarmament are "non-negotiable", might not resonate all that well from a PR point of view, in this context.

 

This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight. Political betrayals and strange bed mates would not be out of character for many of those involved. Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts.

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

 

Hariri's said the suspension of his resignation is temporary, and tied with some sort of dialogue regarding Lebanon's future. If this will come about and in which form, is yet to be seen. Whether or not it will have any meaningful results is yet another unknown.

 

The authors cite sources to the effect that Hariri's resignation "shattered" Lebanon’s coalition government. Other than this being incorrect (the coalition and the government are still in place, no special outbursts of communal strife), then go on commenting on how this didn't actually happen. Unless I missed something, a bit clumsy.

 

I doubt that Saudi Arabia expected or wished that Hariri's resignation would bring about instant political chaos in Lebanon. Public opinion in Lebanon tends to be negative with regard to anything that threatens the status-quo, or heralding the return of massive political violence. Bringing about Hariri's resignation wasn't popular to begin with, and if the situation was to quickly deteriorate, support would have taken a hit. Further, if things were to go south, Saudi Arabia's allies in Lebanon are at a disadvantage vs. Hezbollah. This applies both to organization and armed might, but also to the simple fact that the point man (Hariri) wouldn't be around.

 

I think that within limitations of existing military might and political power, things as they panned out were pretty much what Saudi Arabia could have realistically wished for. The whole affair highlighted Lebanon being used as a battlefield for the Saudi-Iranian proxy war. And yes, of course, it did highlight Saudi meddling in Lebanese affairs, but at the same time, turned another spotlight on Iran's involvement via Hezbollah.

 

Saudi Arabia's mode of engagement in Lebanon is mostly economic and political, whereas Iran's also incorporates a sectarian military angle. In other words, Saudi Arabia's actions (apart from the Hariri resignation thing) is somewhat more "acceptable" with regard to international views, and to an extent, domestic ones as well.

 

If (and that's quite an if) the current move ends with a solution which either limits, slows or prevents Iran's sectarian military support, that's quite a result from a Saudi point of view. If this involves a call for all parties to "leave Lebanon alone", and countries actually comply, it still a net gain for Saudi Arabia (considering "acceptable" involvement will not be fully curtailed). On the other hand, if Hezbollah digs in, and refuses to compromise, cooperate or find any middle way, it may be seen as the party harming the country's stability. Having Iranian officials opining that Iran's support for Hezbollah or its disarmament are "non-negotiable", might not resonate all that well from a PR point of view, in this context.

 

This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight. Political betrayals and strange bed mates would not be out of character for many of those involved. Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts.

>>The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

 

Then you hypocritically proceed to carp at the article with your own vague speculations, as always peppering your comments with conditional language.

 

"I doubt  that..
I think that within limitations...
If (and that's quite an if)...
On the other hand, if ...
This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight... 
Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts."

 

 

The bottom line is neither Hezbollah nor Iran have been the least bit intimidated by the Saudi Crown Prince's mischief making. Which you may find disappointing.

If anything his attempt at destabilization has focused attention on the Saudis' trouble making elsewhere .... in Yemen. And calls for him to sort out his own backyard.

Edited November 26, 2017 by dexterm

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

 

Then you hypocritically proceed to carp at the article with your own vague speculations, as always peppering your comments with conditional language.

 

"I doubt  that..
I think that within limitations...
If (and that's quite an if)...
On the other hand, if ...
This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight... 
Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts."

 

 

The bottom line is neither Hezbollah nor Iran have been the least bit intimidated by the Saudi Crown Prince's mischief making. Which you may find disappointing.

If anything his attempt at destabilization has focused attention on the Saudis' trouble making elsewhere .... in Yemen. And calls for him to sort out his own backyard.

There's a phenomenon psychologists refer to with this example: Don't think about white rabbits. 

 

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

 

Hariri's said the suspension of his resignation is temporary, and tied with some sort of dialogue regarding Lebanon's future. If this will come about and in which form, is yet to be seen. Whether or not it will have any meaningful results is yet another unknown.

 

The authors cite sources to the effect that Hariri's resignation "shattered" Lebanon’s coalition government. Other than this being incorrect (the coalition and the government are still in place, no special outbursts of communal strife), then go on commenting on how this didn't actually happen. Unless I missed something, a bit clumsy.

 

I doubt that Saudi Arabia expected or wished that Hariri's resignation would bring about instant political chaos in Lebanon. Public opinion in Lebanon tends to be negative with regard to anything that threatens the status-quo, or heralding the return of massive political violence. Bringing about Hariri's resignation wasn't popular to begin with, and if the situation was to quickly deteriorate, support would have taken a hit. Further, if things were to go south, Saudi Arabia's allies in Lebanon are at a disadvantage vs. Hezbollah. This applies both to organization and armed might, but also to the simple fact that the point man (Hariri) wouldn't be around.

 

I think that within limitations of existing military might and political power, things as they panned out were pretty much what Saudi Arabia could have realistically wished for. The whole affair highlighted Lebanon being used as a battlefield for the Saudi-Iranian proxy war. And yes, of course, it did highlight Saudi meddling in Lebanese affairs, but at the same time, turned another spotlight on Iran's involvement via Hezbollah.

 

Saudi Arabia's mode of engagement in Lebanon is mostly economic and political, whereas Iran's also incorporates a sectarian military angle. In other words, Saudi Arabia's actions (apart from the Hariri resignation thing) is somewhat more "acceptable" with regard to international views, and to an extent, domestic ones as well.

 

If (and that's quite an if) the current move ends with a solution which either limits, slows or prevents Iran's sectarian military support, that's quite a result from a Saudi point of view. If this involves a call for all parties to "leave Lebanon alone", and countries actually comply, it still a net gain for Saudi Arabia (considering "acceptable" involvement will not be fully curtailed). On the other hand, if Hezbollah digs in, and refuses to compromise, cooperate or find any middle way, it may be seen as the party harming the country's stability. Having Iranian officials opining that Iran's support for Hezbollah or its disarmament are "non-negotiable", might not resonate all that well from a PR point of view, in this context.

 

This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight. Political betrayals and strange bed mates would not be out of character for many of those involved. Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts.

"I think that within limitations of existing military might and political power, things as they panned out were pretty much what Saudi Arabia could have realistically wished for. The whole affair highlighted Lebanon being used as a battlefield for the Saudi-Iranian proxy war. And yes, of course, it did highlight Saudi meddling in Lebanese affairs, but at the same time, turned another spotlight on Iran's involvement via Hezbollah."

If someone uses a flamethrower instead of a spotlight to throw light on a situation, the odds are that it's the flamethrower that will attract the attention and not the thing being illuminated.

Some of us may have forgotten that

1) The Saudis claimed that Lebanon had declared war on Saudi Arabia.

2) All Saudi citizens were commanded to leave Lebanon

3)That the Prime Minister of Lebanon was forced to resign from his office while in Saudi Arabia.

And in fact, western interests intervened to dissuade the Saudis from further pursuing this foolish course. 

How anyone could see this as not being a big black eye for the Saudis is remarkable.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>The authors jump the gun, and engage in some speculation, which is not necessarily correct.

 

Then you hypocritically proceed to carp at the article with your own vague speculations, as always peppering your comments with conditional language.

 

"I doubt  that..
I think that within limitations...
If (and that's quite an if)...
On the other hand, if ...
This being the ME and Lebanon, a whole lot could change overnight... 
Crystal balls' reliability is kinda dodgy in these parts."

 

 

The bottom line is neither Hezbollah nor Iran have been the least bit intimidated by the Saudi Crown Prince's mischief making. Which you may find disappointing.

If anything his attempt at destabilization has focused attention on the Saudis' trouble making elsewhere .... in Yemen. And calls for him to sort out his own backyard.

 

It would seem that anything that doesn't comply with your own vehement, frothing at the mouth style of posting is to be denigrated. Guess you'll have to deal with the fact that not everyone sees much value in sounding like an second rate politician haranguing from a soap box.

 

And, unlike some, I do realize that things in the ME are conditional, rarely set in stone, and are easily subject to turns and twists. Obviously you feel that posting without qualifications, or without considering alternatives is adding to a better understanding of issues discussed - we'll have to disagree. For all your bluster, the bombastic statements you often make regarding ME issues are not always (and I'm being very charitable) accurate or even useful when it comes to analysis and predictions.

 

My post was about presenting an alternative take on things, which does not match the one put forth in the article linked. It wasn't a concrete account or prediction of how things will pan out, but how they might. Other than airing your standing personal issues, and the irrelevant, off-mark comments on my posting style, you have little to contribute, both on topic and specifically with regard to the article linked or my take.

 

I don't know that either Iran or Hezbollah were expected to be "intimidated". Why would they be? Odd choice of word. There was nothing directly "intimidating" as far as either is concerned. And as for a "bottom line", it is haven't been drawn - the crisis is ongoing. It is doubtful that Saudi Arabia will gain much, but perhaps, realistically speaking, even slowing Iran down some would be considered a result.

[Machiavelli]

On 11/24/2017 at 10:20 PM, Morch said:

 

And yet, as Saudi Crown Princes go, he managed to concentrate quite impressive powers, ditch the competition, and for all your nonsense, apparently still popular with the masses.

"Popular with the masses" ? You must have some link you are going to show that will take us to a poll that shows the fella is actually popular with the masses.....or it's all a figment of one's imagination. 

[dexterm]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It would seem that anything that doesn't comply with your own vehement, frothing at the mouth style of posting is to be denigrated. Guess you'll have to deal with the fact that not everyone sees much value in sounding like an second rate politician haranguing from a soap box.

 

And, unlike some, I do realize that things in the ME are conditional, rarely set in stone, and are easily subject to turns and twists. Obviously you feel that posting without qualifications, or without considering alternatives is adding to a better understanding of issues discussed - we'll have to disagree. For all your bluster, the bombastic statements you often make regarding ME issues are not always (and I'm being very charitable) accurate or even useful when it comes to analysis and predictions.

 

My post was about presenting an alternative take on things, which does not match the one put forth in the article linked. It wasn't a concrete account or prediction of how things will pan out, but how they might. Other than airing your standing personal issues, and the irrelevant, off-mark comments on my posting style, you have little to contribute, both on topic and specifically with regard to the article linked or my take.

 

I don't know that either Iran or Hezbollah were expected to be "intimidated". Why would they be? Odd choice of word. There was nothing directly "intimidating" as far as either is concerned. And as for a "bottom line", it is haven't been drawn - the crisis is ongoing. It is doubtful that Saudi Arabia will gain much, but perhaps, realistically speaking, even slowing Iran down some would be considered a result.

The usual desperate derogatory preamble.

The only froth on my mouth is from a nightly pint of Guinness.

 

Despite your pseudo objectivity, you have an agenda, same as me. But I am less verbose and perhaps more direct, especially late at night after I have imbibed too many of aforementioned beverage.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. That's the idea of a public forum.

 

I use the word intimidate, because the Saudis are clearly throwing their imagined weight around.

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

I am not suggesting that Saudi Arabia's moves are subtle. Far from it. Not even that they are effective or well thought out, at that. I think most of them are grounded in sentiments of exasperation, urgency and perhaps even desperation. It may be that for the current, younger leadership, the inherited unfavorable state of things is associated with the old way of doing things, which relied on slow, consensus based decision making processes, and incremental changes. So doing more of the same could be seen as not potent enough to deal with the issues faced. Doesn't mean this strategy proved itself, just that doing the old routine wasn't effective as well.

 

The standard whinging about Iran's meddling in the ME has been done to death. What with partisan associations of such sentiments, the run of the mill protests and instances do not garner special attention. As a dramatic or a tactical means, the Hariri thing served to bring the issue back to the fore. To use your imagery - no one cares if one lights a candle, but everyone takes notice of a flamethrower. That it might backfire is possible, but perhaps its a desperate times, desperate measures sort of thing.

 

Some of us are not in the habit of declaring the final consequences of ongoing crisis and events. Some of us are not strangers to how countries deal and relate to each other in the ME, and therefore take certain statements and steps in context and proportion. Some are not hellbent on extreme or one-sided interpretations. Bombastic statements are run of the mill in the ME, same goes for dramatics. Same goes for client-patron relations being acted out. And unless "some of us" missed it, quite a bit of the relevant Western response also acknowledged the issue of Iran's involvement and meddling.

 

 

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The usual desperate derogatory preamble.

The only froth on my mouth is from a nightly pint of Guinness.

 

Despite your pseudo objectivity, you have an agenda, same as me. But I am less verbose and perhaps more direct, especially late at night after I have imbibed too many of aforementioned beverage.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. That's the idea of a public forum.

 

I use the word intimidate, because the Saudis are clearly throwing their imagined weight around.

 

You had a go at me personally, and at my post - and yet you dare to whine. What was that nonsense about "hypocrisy"? I am nothing like you, sonny. Not when it comes to one-sided views, not when it comes to holding a supposed "agenda", or even having a clear "ideological" stance.

 

Even supposed "throwing weight around" would not be associated with "intimidation" in this context. There isn't a whole lot Saudi Arabia can do which will "intimidate" Iran. You can't even own up simple nonsense statements, it seems.

 

As pointed out, you have nothing of substance to add to the topic. My advice would be don't post if you can't hold your drink.

[dexterm]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

I am not suggesting that Saudi Arabia's moves are subtle. Far from it. Not even that they are effective or well thought out, at that. I think most of them are grounded in sentiments of exasperation, urgency and perhaps even desperation. It may be that for the current, younger leadership, the inherited unfavorable state of things is associated with the old way of doing things, which relied on slow, consensus based decision making processes, and incremental changes. So doing more of the same could be seen as not potent enough to deal with the issues faced. Doesn't mean this strategy proved itself, just that doing the old routine wasn't effective as well.

 

The standard whinging about Iran's meddling in the ME has been done to death. What with partisan associations of such sentiments, the run of the mill protests and instances do not garner special attention. As a dramatic or a tactical means, the Hariri thing served to bring the issue back to the fore. To use your imagery - no one cares if one lights a candle, but everyone takes notice of a flamethrower. That it might backfire is possible, but perhaps its a desperate times, desperate measures sort of thing.

 

Some of us are not in the habit of declaring the final consequences of ongoing crisis and events. Some of us are not strangers to how countries deal and relate to each other in the ME, and therefore take certain statements and steps in context and proportion. Some are not hellbent on extreme or one-sided interpretations. Bombastic statements are run of the mill in the ME, same goes for dramatics. Same goes for client-patron relations being acted out. And unless "some of us" missed it, quite a bit of the relevant Western response also acknowledged the issue of Iran's involvement and meddling.

 

 

Oops..sorry.. addressing wrong post.

Edited November 27, 2017 by dexterm

[ilostmypassword]

The Mysterious Buyer of the $450 Million Leonardo da Vinci? A Saudi Prince

He is a little-known Saudi prince from a remote branch of the royal family, with no history as a major art collector, and no publicly known source of great wealth...

Prince Bader splurged on this controversial and decidedly un-Islamic portrait of Christ at a time when most members of the Saudi elite, including some in the royal family, are cowering under a sweeping crackdown against corruption and self-enrichment.

As it happens, Prince Bader is a friend and associate of the leader of the purge: the country’s 32-year-old crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/salvator-mundi-da-vinci-saudi-prince-bader.html

 

Another brilliant move on the part of the boy genius?

 

[Morch]

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Your one liner comment does not actually relate to the article linked.

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Your one liner comment does not actually relate to the article linked.

You mean because he's friends with a prince who apparently doesn't have the means and has displayed no interest in art suddenly comes up with 450 million dollars? I think the Times article pointed to a possible source of that cash.

Edited December 7, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean because he's friends with a prince who apparently doesn't have the means and has displayed no interest in art suddenly comes up with 450 million dollars? I think the Times article pointed to a possible source of that cash.

 

Back with that "you mean...", eh? No, what I meant was that your implying something which is not even directly supported by the article you linked. What you "think" is another matter.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Back with that "you mean...", eh? No, what I meant was that your implying something which is not even directly supported by the article you linked. What you "think" is another matter.

You don't see any implications about that in the article? A case of fanboyitis.

[Rimmer]

A baiting post and reply have been removed