"Iranians Storm And Set On Fire Saudi Arabia's Embassy ..." Topic

…In Tehran.

"* Saudi embassy in Tehran set on fire and trashed by angry protesters in Iran following Nimr al-Nimr's execution
* Demonstrators clashed with security forces in Bahrain as they protested Saudi Arabia's execution of Nimr al-Nimr
* Protesters also took to the streets in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Indian-controlled Kashmir and Pakistan
* Saudi Arabia executed 47 'terrorists' yesterday morning by firing squad and beheading
* Includes Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, 56, and Fares al-Shuwai said to be Al-Qaeda religious leader arrested in 2004
* Saudi Arabian security forces have been despatched to Qatif, the hometown of Nimr al-Nimr

Angry crowds of Iranian protesters hurled petrol bombs and stormed the kingdom's embassy in Tehran late last night in reaction to Saudi Arabia's decision to execute a top Shiite cleric along with 46 other prisoners.

None of the Saudi embassy staff were inside the building as protesters broke into the building and took out their anger on the offices. Photos have been emerging on social media showing demonstrators damaging embassy property, including removing the national flag from the building…"
Full article here
link

YouTube link

Is this War?

Amicalement
Armand

The question is why did they wait so long.

Most of these individuals were arrested years ago.

Well, that was predictable………..

The question is why did they wait so long.

Most of these individuals were arrested years ago.

Big difference between arresting a prominent Shi'ite cleric and chopping his head off.

Couldn't happen to a nicer lot.

Karma at best.

ANNNNND … what is the bottom line for this not unexpected event ? The forever ongoing Sunni vs. Shia very much Islamic (un)"civil" war … They have to get their together. Or one clearly "defeat" the other … However, it appears many moslems' take on this … would require some form of genocide … And that is all I'm going to say about it …

link

Hardly a surprise, but the execution does look like another step on the road to a Middle East reenactment of the 30-years war. I'm assuming Saudi probably feel like they can poke the (Iranian) bear as much as they like as because they don't think that their western allies will do much more than tut loudly…. (Frankly. I'm for giving their geopolitical chock-chain a damn good yank, major world oil supplier or no).

No war. It was just an embassy.

In civilized countries, embassies and ambassadors are sacred, inviolate, can even give sanctuary to wanted criminals.

In lands, embassies and ambassadors are hostages, to be sacked and murdered as a sign of diplomatic displeasure.

Ambassador Stevens, we have not all forgotten.

You know Iranians and embassies …

Rod- Thanks for the link. Got a good laugh.

Ambassador Stevens, we have not all forgotten

Or in '79 our Ambassador in A'stan … Adolph Dubs …

That makes at least 2 of us !

Still "Sleeping With The Devil"….

The Iranian police did clear out the rioters and arrested over 40 of them. The cleric is question was firm believer in non violence and was not a terrorist. The Saudis used the mass execution of al-qaeda members as a cover to execute some non violent protesters of their government. Anyone who still supports the leading supplier of 9/11 terrorists gets what they deserve.

It's a real pleasure to read about some other countries embassy being attacked. Although, I'm sure if we still had a US Embassy in Iran, it too would have been sacked.

What diplomatic relations?

link

link

link

Well, Iranian government aren't too happy about it themselves:

'However, in what appeared to be a move to calm tensions, the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, said the attack on the Saudi Embassy was unjustifiable, and urged that the perpetrators be dealt with.

"I have no doubt that the Saudi government has damaged its image, more than before, among the countries in the world – in particular (among) Islamic countries –by this un-Islamic act," Rouhani said.

Taking a cautionary tone, he added: "We will not allow rogue elements" to use the incident and "carry out illegal actions that damage the dignity of the Islamic republic establishment".

"I call on the interior minister to identify the perpetrators of this attack with firm determination and introduce them to the judiciary … so that there will be an end to such appalling actions once and for all."'

link

To me, it's another case of the Saudis being, at best, setting themselves up. They are not very nice people and I think I can understand the embassy burning being a foreseeable consequence of their actions.

More blaming the victim. When will we learn to stand up, for ourselves and for our friends?

"Friends"? No friends of mine. Google "Saudi terrorism."

link

'In March 2014, the Saudi interior ministry issued a royal decree branding all 'deviants' as terrorists, which defines terrorism as "calling for deviant thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based" '

That basically means that all non-Islamists are terrorists as the belief in Muhammad is fundamental.

In the embassy burning, the main victims seem to have been executed.

And… no, I'm not saying that the were innocents. I don't know whether they were or not. But then, I think my definition of innocent might be different to the official Saudi view.

Something came to my attention … that many may not know. From what I understand, 85% of moslems are Sunni. And the 3 largest Shite moslem countries regionally are Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan … Hmmm … interesting …

Also note some of those nations mentioned are frequently in violation of human rights, etc. … including the Saudis. Maybe the Saudis and Iranians should just go to war and settle this forever war of the age old Sunni-Shia conflict ? There would probably be a blood bath of "biblical proportions" … however …

We will probably learn they were republican guards sent in to get secret documents in the Saudi embassy.

zippyfusenet:
You have no friends in the region. So for whom should the USA stand up? The Saudis? The Ba'athists? The Iranians? The Israelis? All are either self-serving parasites which have lured the USA into a disadvantageous symbiosis or just out right hate the US Government and its policies abroad. The best bet would be to just leave the region and if necessary station US forces on non-disputed Israeli soil if you insist upon "defending" the nuclear armed, regional super-power of Israel.

Legion 4:
Afghani Shi'a include Ismailis and Hazara. The Hazara have been traditionally oppressed by the Sunna but this oppression really took an upturn when the Taliban Sunna started to kill Hazara by the hundreds and later thousands each year. The murder of Hazara continues to this day. I hardly think that you can blame a campaign of extermination on those being exterminated. Anyway the number of Shi'a in Afghanistan is somewhere between 10 and 20 % of the total population and since the killing is likely closer to 10%.
Shi'a in Iraq were also ill-treated by the Ba'athist regime under Saddam Husein but it was not until the US encouraged the Chaldean Shi'a (Marsh Arabs) to rise up against the Husein Regime during and after the First Gulf War that the Ba'athists began a whole sale slaughter while the US looked on. Final the US imposed the southern No-Fly zone in an effort to deny the regime the use of its helicopters and gunships against the largely shi'a Marsh Arabs.
So it is the Sunna and not the Shi'a who are the mass murderers here.
Modern Iran has a surprisingly good reputation in dealing with minority Islamic sects and other religions. Sunni, Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian communities exist and are generally well treated despite the firey rhetoric from the Shi'a Ayatollahs and Imams.
So I think your analysis needs some rethinking and review.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Yes, I know all that, regardless … it comes down to Sunni vs. Shia …

not the Shi'a who are the mass murderers here.

But the Shia militia in Iraq killed many US/Coalition troops during GWII. And they, like the precursor to Hezbollah, in Lebanon killed US and French troops in '83 … etc. … And Iran is the top supporters of Hezbollah.

I think your analysis needs some rethinking and review.

You are going to have a very hard time convincing me one religious faction is "better" than the other …

You have no friends in the region.

Save for the Israelis/IDF …

Legion 4:
The USA invaded their country! If a foreign power invaded your country would you not fight back and try to drive out the invaders by whatever means were available to you?
The last time Iran invaded another country was in 1739 when they slaughtered 20,000-30,000 at Kamal (Sp?) in an Indian Mughal kingdom! The United States has been around only since 1776 and it has been fighting between 215 and 222 years of the 239 years of its existence depending how you define 'at war'. The vast majority of those military operations were offensive operations initiated by the USA (false-flag operations notwithstanding). So perhaps the real problem is the global super power which keeps invading, bombing and destabilizing the region and not the people and nations being invaded?
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Kyoteblue:
There's a country song in there somewhere!
"You took a long time to leave me, Af'stan" or "Shi'a Broke my Heart".
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

zippyfusenet:

In civilized countries, embassies and ambassadors are sacred, inviolate, can even give sanctuary to wanted criminals.

How soon we forget!
link
and three pages here:
link
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

The USA invaded their country!

Yep … but that does not mean I like them killing our guys … But on my side we will kill as many of the enemy as we can. It's called "war" … I'm sure you've heard about it. It was in all the papers.

The vast majority of those military operations were offensive operations initiated by the USA (false-flag operations notwithstanding). So perhaps the real problem is the global super power which keeps invading, bombing and destabilizing the region and not the people and nations being invaded?

Yes, that is the way the US fights wars … you don't win on the defensive.

So perhaps the real problem is you don't understand … the mission of combat forces is to kill and destroy enemy forces. In large numbers, as often as possible … It matter's little to me if we invaded or not …

zippy:"More blaming the victim. When will we learn to stand up, for ourselves and for our friends?"

Rod I:"You have no friends in the region. So for whom should the USA stand up?"

Also Rod I:"The murder of Hazara continues to this day. I hardly think that you can blame a campaign of extermination on those being exterminated."

But, but, but…the Hazara are in that region so they are not our friends, so we should not stand up for them, so it's alright to blame them for their own extermination, isn't it? I'm so confused, Rod I. What day of the week is this, and which side of your face are you talking out of?

More zippy: "In civilized countries, embassies and ambassadors are sacred, inviolate, can even give sanctuary to wanted criminals."

And again Rod I: "How soon we forget!
link
and three pages here:
link"

But, Rod I. In the case you linked to, US troops did *not* violate the Papal embassy. They found a way to get Noriega out without violating the embassy. Mighty resourceful, those Yanks. So the facts contradict what you are implying, that US troops violated the Papal embassy in Panama. I suppose that's why you imply it, rather than stating it directly, which would be a bare-faced lie.

Once again, I note that you make a habit of this sort of obfuscation.

Legion 4:
Are you kidding me? The US does not have a free pass to start wars anywhere and anytime it pleases.
So, if it is perfectly fine for US forces to invade anywhere they please, does that mean that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. can do the same if they feel such operations are in their national interest? After all they can't win by being defensive, can they? And if they choose to do it all at the same time and to use economic warfare to undermine the US war-machine before it can respond to their coordinated actions, then I guess you're OK with that too.
Arrogance is the first sign of a collapsing empire and Jupiter first makes mad those he wishes to destroy! You will become a pariah nation and end very badly if you continue on this path and since most of my family are American, I'd rather keep them safe and sound rather than sacrificing them on the bloody alter of rampant militarism which you seem to be endorsing. I sincerely hope I have misunderstood what you have said.
Rod Robertson.

zippyfusenet:
You and not I used the word 'inviolate' and the US did violate the embassy of the Holy See by laying siege to it and by using psychological warfare for ten days on the Vatican staff there. It was they who were worn down and finally misled Noriega into thinking that his immediate surrender was his only option. All of this is completely covered in the links I provided to you.
You also used the phrase, 'can even give sanctuary to wanted criminals', which the US would not allow the Apostolic Nunciature to do in Noriega's case. So there is no talking out of both sides of my face and no need for tantrums or ad hominem attacks. History bites!
Rod Robertson

Help! Help! Rod I is violating me with psychological violence! Oh, the violation…

zippyfusenet:
This is not a very persuasive line of reasoning you are using. Make an argument rather than a scene to prove your case. Enjoy the passive-aggressive violence I'm laying on you dude and just roll with the rhetorical punches. Leftie-liberal peace and love to you and pax vobiscum too!
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Are you kidding me? The US does not have a free pass to start wars anywhere and anytime it pleases.
So, if it is perfectly fine for US forces to invade anywhere they please, does that mean that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. can do the same if they feel such operations are in their national interest?

Here is the short answer…

Yes they can.

Oh and Russia did that this last year.

Why does everyone think that there are things like illegal Wars?

We should have gone to War with Iran back in 1979 but we didn't.

Mithmee:
Why? What would invading Iran have achieved? You could not afford to occupy the country nor could you have installed a lasting pro-western government. All that you would achieve is killing too many American servicemen and far too many Iranians. You would have simply radicalized the entire Iranian population, created a much larger second Islamic Revolution and given the a Soviets wonderful opportunities to bleed your military and economy dry. Imagine the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but on a far larger scale. War for war's sake is pathological. Such a waste of blood and for no good end.
It is easy to start wars, difficult to survive them and damned hard to stop them. Only madmen and fools should look forward to war. With power comes responsibility, not wanton license.
Nimr Al Nimr understood this and refused to be seduced by the militarism and violence which has possessed both the Saudi elite and the Iranian Old Guard Revolutionaries. He advocated non-violent resistance to Sunni oppression of Shi'a in Saudi Arabia and was decapitated for his troubles. Long after King Salman is forgotten, the House of Saud is brought down and US power has waned, Nimr Al Nimr will be remembered by his people as a gentle martyr and a light of hope in a very dark time.
Rod Robertson.

Something to reflect upon:
youtu.be/m04pLdH5CTI
Rod Robertson

I have to agree with Mithmee, Rod … in response to your reply to my post.

Arrogance is the first sign of a collapsing empire and Jupiter first makes mad those he wishes to destroy! You will become a pariah nation and end very badly

No one said anything about invading Iran today. And the US in Lebanon in '83 with a few Bns we had there was not and is not an invasion. And the US was not alone, the French lost some paras as well. To the precursor to Hezbollah with the support of Iran and Syria. And if you notice to many the US is a Pariah.

The US has too much involvement in the world market to be ignored. And I'm huge fan of economic sanctions and warfare. Long before anything militarily is done. As long as we are talking about real nations. Not a bunch of terrorists, jihadis, etc. … But if economic and cyber warfare could work there too … I'm all for using those and any assets including non-military to put the enemy at a disadvantage. That is just good tactics and strategy.

if you continue on this path and since most of my family are American, I'd rather keep them safe and sound rather than sacrificing them on the bloody alter of rampant militarism which you seem to be endorsing. I sincerely hope I have misunderstood what you have said.

Oh stop with the theatrics ! No one is calling for a WWIII or massive invasion of anywhere.

My point was by showing weakness to some like the Persians or Putin only puts you in place of weakness. When you "negotiate" you want to come from a place of strength Not weakness. Or you will loose at the table. Unfortunately, much of the US's ability has been lost recently do to poor understanding of the geopolitical situations. And refusing to understand the reality of what is going on.

And if you fear for you family because you think The US is on a course of rampant militarism. You don't understand what that is. And the US is far from that paradigm.

It is easy to start wars, difficult to survive them and damned hard to stop them. Only madmen and fools should look forward to war. With power comes responsibility, not wanton license.

More theatrics ! Again No one is saying go and start WWIII in the Mid East. You're jousting at windmills again. You are looking for a devil in the dark … and if you look hard enough, and as zippy said, continue with this sort of obfuscation … You will find your monster even if it does not really exist … but only to you and some others who think like you.

Believe me there are plenty more Real monsters in the world. Many waving the flag of militant, radicalized, fundamentalist, fanatical islam … I have to describe it that way as not to paint all of islam with that broad brush. Regardless, you and your kind can get your pitch forks and torches and run to the castle again … But the only monster you will find are those of your own making … The crypt and coffins are long empty … If there was anything there in the first place …

Legion 4:
Read Andrew Bacevich's books "Washington Rules" and "The New American Militarism". These two books clearly layout what has been happening to the US reliance on military power since 1991 and how this is changing the USA and sending it down a road along which the republic will wither and die to be replaced by an imperial oligarchy with no room for democracy and freedom. This process is not hypothetical and is not a possible future, it is happening right now and Basevich explains how this will lead to political, economic and ultimately military encirclement of the USA if not outright war. These are two excellent books and well worth your time.
I am not being dramatic. World wars do not start because one nation decides its a nice day for Ragnarok. They start gradually when one state pushes too hard and other states move to check that aggression. The push and counter-push continues for a while first in peace and later in one or more limited wars and then a tipping point is reached and a military cascade reaction occurs. Before most people know it you're in a world war. The speed with which the cascade event arrives and changes one or more limited wars into a global one can be years (WWII), months (WWI) or days (9/11 and the War on Terror). When that cascade occurs there is no way to control the unravelling of diplomacy and communication and the switch to unrestrained warfare happens quickly.
No one in the spring of 1914 believed that a world war was likely then. They had thought it likely in 1905, 1908 and 1911-12. They expected it could happen in a few years time if tensions rose again. But in the spring of 1914 tensions were low and prosperity was on an uptick. They thought they had dodged the bullet. Then the Austrian-Serbian War was rapidly born out of an unexpected assassination and the cascade to war happened quickly from there as the treaty system and mobilization fears drew in more and more states.
The reliance on modern US militarism has the capability to trigger such a cascade today, tomorrow or in the near future. Treaties in Asia and Europe could draw you into wars when you are otherwise entangled in other military adventures elsewhere. Potential enemies, when faced with the overwhelming military might of the USA, might choose to encircle you and time economic, political and electronic attacks on US interests in such a way as to hit those interests simultaneously in too many places for you to respond effectively to all of the attacks. Unable to deal with so many challenges in such a short period of time, the USA might escalate to military responses which could lead to the military cascade event that triggers a global war.
The capacity of the USA to solve international problems diplomatically is atrophying as militarism becomes the go-to tool to solve international problems. Soon this atrophy will mean that the only solution you have at your disposal is a military one. If the only tool in your belt is a hammer, then all your problems become nails to be hammered. Thus problems which could have been solved by non-military means, don't get solved by non-military means but instead are treated as military matters and dealt with by military means. This leads to the wider use of military hard-power and less and less willingness and patience to use soft-power. This is seen by other states as provocative aggression and arrogance, further building a wider and wider consensus to encircle and undermine American might. The combination of external encirclement and internal militarism increases the likelihood of a run-away war triggering a cascade and causing a much larger and far more destructive conflict. So, no, this is not theatrics or hyperbole. This process is happening right now and and is well along the way to setting the conditions for a military cascade event. It's only a matter of time.
Rod Robertson.

Rod I Robertson +1

I would also suggest MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow's excellent and thought-provoking book "Drift" to your reading list. Before you dismiss it as propaganda, consider that it's been praised and recommended by both sides of the spectrum including Rupert Murdoch's "fair and balanced" FOX News network.

Guys … I'm sorry … I think this is bordering on "conspiracy" theories … The US military is the strongest most high tech military on the planet. With few rivals. However, the US is downsizing and withdrawing from many places where it waged wars. Save for relatively small detachments of highly trained and skilled units. With support of very high tech. And of course part of that is CAS, Drones, etc. …

The current paradigm is the use of small elite operators with CAS, etc. … And no matter how good these forces are they can't defeat the current rogues' gallery of enemies without strong local support. And as we see, in both Iraq and A'stan, no matter how much training and support the West provides … in many, many cases the locals just are not up to the task. For a number of reason we already know.

I'm not the only one saying this. I just heard on the news retired US Military including an Army GEN and USN CPT. Saying the same thing … we spent a lot of $$$ and lives in these regions. But yet the locals just can't save themselves on their own.

Regardless, it is clear to me, the US is withdrawing from the problem areas. And keeping minimal forces if any. Which may or may not be a good thing. IMO, we can't "save" the Iraqis or Afghanis from themselves and their lunatic fringe brethren.

Again, the US knows how to wage limited war with this new mix of asymmetrical enemies.
So where do you see the downsized US and many of the NATO's members forces deploying en masse ? We certainly are not going to war with the Russians or China, at anytime soon or in the foreseeable future. For any reasons I can find yet.

Unable to deal with so many challenges in such a short period of time, the USA might escalate to military responses which could lead to the military cascade event that triggers a global war.

"Might" … Only in the most dire of circumstances. Which I can't even see what series of events could occur to make that a reality.

The capacity of the USA to solve international problems diplomatically is atrophying

And I think we know how that happened and it was not over night. "Nuff said … as I don't want to be DH'd … again …

as militarism becomes the go-to tool to solve international problems. Soon this atrophy will mean that the only solution you have at your disposal is a military one.

Where and when ? We saw what a mistake it was supporting the Muj against the USSR. Then compound that with the error of GWII. I think many in the military, intel agencies and even the civilian elected leadership has figured this out.

You will see less and less use of any large scale military forces deployed as this new warfare paradigm goes on. We did that in the past. And in the current regions in conflict we saw it didn't have the expected/hoped for results. For a variety of reasons. This is the 21st Century … not the 20th … not WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or even GWI.

Stop yelling the sky is falling … it isn't … I think the US/NATO military and civilian leadership has got this figured out now.

the republic will wither and die to be replaced by an imperial oligarchy with no room for democracy and freedom.

What you watching too much of the SyFy channel ? This is as likely as happening as aliens landing on the WH lawn. Really you guys are supposed to be intelligent and knowledgeable … And you are buying into this ?!? Really ?!?

And will that green glow be the landing of alien spacecraft to broker a deal with the most powerful nation on the planet ? Probably …

Well put, Legion. The longer I live, the less likely it seems that the world will end before I do.

Legion 4:
Oligarchy is here:

link

PDF link

Special Forces and Close Air Support is still a military response and is just as likely to trigger encirclement and an eventual cascade event.

link

as is naval policy:

PDF link

Atrophy of Diplomacy:

link

The term "Conspiracy Theory":

PDF link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

You can see to China?

Well based on their market going in flat spin recently … I don't think the aliens will be visiting them anytime soon.

Save for some Chinese take out … they make the best I'm told !

The longer I live, the less likely it seems that the world will end before I do.

Indeed … we'll be long dead …

Rod … Rod … please post that kind of stuff on one of the Sci-fi boards …