|
Sucrose posted:What, now you're following 9/11 "Truther" theories? Tell us more about how the Federal Government created "Al Qaeda." I think he was referring to the US's description of AQ as a cohesive, tight knit, and well-organized boogeyman as opposed to what it actually is in order to fit their narrative. This I think is pretty reasonable in itself, but I don't know how well it compares to the Assad/JAN situation.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Brown Moses, do you have any thoughts as to any possible implications of this sudden appearance of wire guided missiles? Such as where they might be coming from, etc. Also, don't wire guided missiles require some kind of training to use? Sorry if this is all wrong and naive, but I know literally nothing about military weapons and your blog has been the first time for me hearing about many things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I do, I can't say more, but keep an eye on the news in the next week or so. I'd like to say more, but I won't as a professional courtesy. I understand, thanks for the amazing blog by the way I never post so I don't think I've ever thanked you. Wirth1000, I could be very wrong but I think it is very significant that it's Al-Jazeera making the most definitive statement. I also think it is very significant that the wire guided missiles are popping up only in the North, considering what country is north of Syria. Farraday, from what I can tell it appears to be some type of SS-11-esque deal. I'm no Brown Moses though so take that with a grain of salt. Edit again, Farraday, check 0:44 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmnq7BB1tj8 Mixodorian fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Also, since this seems to be the general ME thread, is anyone else worried about protests starting up in Iran like in 09 once Rowhani loses? Now I'm not saying for sure he's going to lose, but it seems more likely Ghalibaf will win, who is more socially conservative than Rowhani who as seen as the reformer. From what I've seen from Iranians online who are obviously going to be the younger population, Rowhani losing is going to be seen as fraudulent again and it seems like that segment of the population is ready to be up in arms in a heart beat. I hate that the Iranian election campaign cycle is only 3 weeks, it makes it hard to figure out what's going on. And for those who don't know, Iran is about 2/3 socially conservative and 1/3 liberal to be general. My guess is Rowhani will win the first round as the split between social conservatives will cause Ghalibaf to lose the first round but win the second when it's just him vs Rowhani. I'm worried about Iran heading down the path that those in Turkey are on now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:You know, as someone of Persian ethnicity and with direct cultural & familial connections with Iran, I always find it a bit amusing seeing people here in Canada or North American (or the West in general) posts seemingly giving the Iranian Presidency or its elections any sort of legitimacy. Like the illusion of some sort of political hierarchy and structure has any sort of meaning or substance like it does in western democratic countries. I don't know if you noticed, but Ahmedinejad has turned on the religious right recently. I know the voting process itself is screwy in Iran and like in the US real progressives can never beat the terrible established names, but it's not all totally fraudulent like you're describing just like it isn't in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Ahmadinejad and every politician who ever agreed with him got politically burnt at the stake, so he's kind of a bad example if you're trying to show a freedom for politicians to express what they believe. No I know, but the poster I quoted appeared to be saying that Ahmedinejad is in the pocket of Khamenei and that whoever wins this time around will be as well. This is the attitude of a lot of the Iranian youth afaik too, which isn't good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:
Long story short, none no and no. The Iranian president change won't affect Syria. There simply no way that any of them will be following in Mahmoud's foot steps in terms of going against the clerics. Rowhani isn't really anything worth writing home about and I'm pretty sure he's pro-Assad, but I suppose I hope he wins so we don't have the 09 protests all over again. Pay no mind to the western media coverage of the Iranian elections, the players in it don't fit in the same roles as western elections. Social conservatives are economically liberal, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
Blackbird Fly posted:I do have to say that in these gas attacks, the problem is not that gas was used but that innocents were killed. I mean seriously, what kind of hosed up logic thinks that certain weapons are legal over others in killing innocent people. When a person stands trial for first-degree murder the judge won't give a lesser sentence because the murderer used a crowbar instead of a shotgun. The problem is chemical weapons cost essentially nothing to produce, which makes permitting their use dangerous in that massive population killing amounts could be produced nearly instantaneously at almost no cost.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
I've been out of the loop with following Mid Eastern news since it is pretty much perpetual misery... but was wondering if someone could clarify things for me with regards to Iran. I've seen several relevant news stories in the past day that have me worried. These would be: -Rouhani being pressured to show how the nuclear deal will benefit Iran, and we still haven't fully held up our end of the bargain to give them back access to banking that was formerly sanctioned. https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2016/oct/27/wests-failure-to-reconnect-iran-to-global-banks-risks-breaching-nuclear-deal -John Podesta's think tank having a meeting including people like UAE's ambassador to the US in which they discussed how important it is to fully side with the gulf states and start loving with Iran because of their involvement in Syria and Yemen. -US military officials today affirming their belief/knowledge that Iran is aiding the Houthis, who have targeted our Navy a few time off the coast of Yemen. I really, really, really don't want us to fight with Iran at all. I wish we would fully ally with them over Saudi Arabia. Even just a falling out of the nuclear deal would be a major step backwards at this point. What is the outlook? I know a lot of you follow everything in that part of the world very closely, and was hoping to be reassured things will be ok.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The biggest problems with trading Saudi Arabia for Iran are that Iran doesn't want to be our ally, and doesn't want to get along with Israel. Plus we'd be worried about the Saudis collecting their layaway nukes and/or starting their own crash nuclear program, plus (somehow) increasing their radicalization efforts elsewhere. Basically they have the potential to be a worse enemy than Iran, and the US is likely to continue to wager that having them as a very bad ally is useful as harm mitigation. This is a good perspective and hard to argue against. I would think we could build a amicable relationship with Iran if we turned our backs on SA and Israel... but that would obviously be a huge deal with tons of implications. My issue is that if we keep backing SA and Israel as we have been, how can we expect things to get better in the Middle East. It really seems like everything over there is such an extreme mess that there are no remedies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Count Roland posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41870406 None of this is tinfoil hat, it is just reality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2017 23:55
|
|
of me, but I read this and think of the story I posted yesterday about Israel threatening to move more forcefully into Syria.