You asked no question and just keep ranting on about how its okay for others, namely KSA, to meddle openly and not just once but throughout the last few decades and even in the present with them along with Israel itching at Iran, calling and supporting the oppressors of Egypt as allies (for all your talk about the past its all very much in the present) and then call us the apologists when you fit your own definition of an apologist perfectly. :smack:
I asked you a question at the start of the post. Apparently you didn’t read it…or comprehend it.
In case you miss the point, in the end it is you who is ignoring the meddling of countries other than KSA, namely Iran.
My stance against Assad has nothing to do with your misplaced notions of territorial integrity.
My view of Saudi is that they are correct in supporting the rebels. You and your ilk cannot even bring yourselves to acknowledge the breadth and particular ferocity of the crime he and his supporters have conducted over the past year or so.
Secondly, I think you are unable to read. As I stated numerous times I could care less if it was Jack and the Beanstalk’s monster having a war as long as noone meddled in it and I think Assad is a scumbagin bold. Tomorrow if KSA went into civil war and we had Iran meddling in it I would be saying the same thing and you would be calling me a Saudi apologist.
But then again selective reading here is a massive issue whenever you have responded.
You have also failed to answer a simple question, you justified Bahrain oppressing its people with KSA (surprise surprise) with them by saying Bahrain’s ‘‘established rulers had the right to call foreign help’’ well then why the double standards over Syria? Their rulers have ruled for decades, can’t get more established than that.
Anyhow, lets say Saudis go on a killing spree of Shias in KSA would it be okay for Iran to meddle in KSA?
If you answer no then that makes your entire stance hypocritical and a classic example of someone who is an apologist. If you say yes then I’d like to understand why you think intervention works when it has a history of not working.
So then, I take it you are a massive Bush supporter as well since he intervened in Iraq? Or say tomorrow Pakistan starts killing its Hindus en masse you would support India attacking us? Or US attacking us?
I would be singing from the same sheet if KSA was in a civil war and Iran funding the rebels. You can’t pick and choose, I clearly am not. If you pick and choose YOU become an apologist, which ironically you accused me of.
I could call you a muttava from Saudi Arabia or an extreme Wahaabi or ET from outer space but that would add nothing to the discussion but would only reflect the maturity of the person doing the name calling. I here concede and admit the stage is yours in that regard.
Iran's merely vocal support to Bahraini shia population cannot be compared with Saudi/etc. **military **and **financial **support to Qaeda affiliates in Syria.
it’s all cute and optimistic to say that there should be no state interference but this has been going on for about three years now, resulting in over 100k civilian deaths.. international interference from super powers will continue to exist as it always has done. do you think it’d be easy to kill/overthrow assad now with his close ties to iran, considering **** has gone on for too long and reaching an end to the bloodshed is unlikely unless there’s negotiations, perhaps if that involves a truce between saudia and iran, or some sort of co-ordinated withdrawal? otherwise iran and assad won’t budge despite the “threat of a credible, armed force”. as for pakistan, any sense and it’d steer clear of this. maybe it’d be easier to allow assad a say in the future of syria and then creep up on him at night, give him the and butcher the crap out of him? just wondering what the wa uncles think.
I think Pakistan should train an army of terror for Saudi Arabia for $100,000 Cash each per year of training (minimum per trainee $100,000) … With one uncompromising condition, that all trainees should be Saudi born Nationals (No If, But or any excuse in this matter).
Pakistan can tell to KSA that Pakistan cannot train (at any cost) nationals of other countries or people who have any link with other countries, at any cost. As for training Pakistanis or Afghans, that should be absolutely out of question ... rather Pakistan should start process of sending them (Pakistani terrorists or Afghan terrorists on Pakistani soil) to their Jannah on fast track.
I bet KSA would not even going to send a single of his own born national for training in Pakistan, as they know that eventually these trained terrorists would come back to KSA for their ‘fitna and fasad’ ... and cutting the throat of Saudi royal family and officials.
Iran's merely vocal support to Bahraini shia population cannot be compared with Saudi/etc. **military **and **financial **support to Qaeda affiliates in Syria.
But let's get real guys, had Bahraini authorities brutalized the Shia population as Assad has the Sunnis in Syria, Iran SHOULD and MUST intervene.
It's sad they've chosen the wrong side in Syria, and are thinking with puny ideoligical minds...but in the end, that situation would be identical to Syria, where Saudi is right to sponsor the Syrian rebels.
Second, Saudi is excluding the Al-Q affiliates...so no need to be propagandists for Assad.
Iran's merely vocal support to Bahraini shia population cannot be compared with Saudi/etc. **military **and **financial **support to Qaeda affiliates in Syria.
Iran has no land links or amphibious force to do it and I can bet you that the US fleet there teaches them some manners as well. Iran did it with Afghanistan, Syria and even yemen as well with houthi rebels. Pakistan should just stay out. Let the arabs and the wannabe arab Persians deal with it.
Well, Saudis can cry about anything they want, but the fact is that there were no proofs of Iranian involvement in Bahrain or Yemen.
Saudi, on the other hand, entered Bahrain civil strife openly and crushed the resented population of Bahrain. It also is very open in supporting, financing opposition in Syria even if it means Qaeda takfiris.
Well, Saudis can cry about anything they want, but the fact is that there were no proofs of Iranian involvement in Bahrain or Yemen.
Saudi, on the other hand, entered Bahrain civil strife openly and crushed the resented population of Bahrain. It also is very open in supporting, financing opposition in Syria even if it means Qaeda takfiris.
What exactly did the Saudis do to quash the rebellion in Bahrain?
Is this a trick question?
They sent troops who suppressed unarmed opposition in another foreign country. Blatant show of disregard to international norms.
Saudis had no diplomatic qualms and they were unabashedly open in this interference because Americans and Israelis were at their side.
Iran is a part of ‘axis of evil’ of America and its allies around the world, with virtually no friends due to American pressure. Yet the commission that was founded to investigate Iranian interference found no evidence.
“Bahrain’s Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) released its long-awaited report this week detailing events during the country’s protests in February and March of this year. The commission clearly stated there is no evidence that Iran was linked to fomenting unrest by Shi’a protesters, despite widespread belief to the contrary”.
So why haven't Muslims flocked to Bahrain to defend this oppression of the bahraini people? Is it simply because the population of Bahrain is mainly Shia and not Sunni?
Last I checked, there is no war going on in Bahrain. Syrian war was very local initially until later on, there were other players coming in the field.
Khoji, you criticize saudia but how come are you not criticizing Iran for its meddling in Syria? If you say that all the syrian opposition is takfiris, then the whole country should be with Assad and basiji, IIRC should not be needed along with hezbollah to provide troops, right? It is like Pakistan needing NATO troops to take on taliban in pakistan.
I just should bring some coke and popcorn and see all of you guys implode on this thread!
Why hasn't there been a war in Bahrain isn't one reason that the protestors were brutally suppressed by foreign forces ie the Saudis, whereas the Bahraini protestors had no foreign help. They had nobody to provide them with machine guns or mortars or grenade launchers. Foreign Muslim jihadis didn't flock to the country to help its majority Shia population.
Why hasn't there been a war in Bahrain isn't one reason that the protestors were brutally suppressed by foreign forces ie the Saudis, whereas the Bahraini protestors had no foreign help. They had nobody to provide them with machine guns or mortars or grenade launchers. Foreign Muslim jihadis didn't flock to the country to help its majority Shia population.
Quite the opposite of what is happening in Syria.
What happened in Bahrain is totally unacceptable and the majority should get their rightful due. However, the same should apply in Syria, dont you think. I condemn both, can you explain why you are one sided in this. You seem to condemn what happened in Bahrain which in comparison to what the Butcher of Syria did to his own people is nothing. Let see you condemn the butcher of Syria known as animal Assad. I am with the people of Syria and people of Bahrain. are you? Just a simple yes or no as to your condemnation of this butcher.
