"Syria's war: What went wrong in east Aleppo?" Topic

"When the Russian intervention into the Syrian conflict accelerated in mid-2016, many analysts and partisans declared the "Battle of Aleppo" to hold the key to the future of the Syrian conflict.

Decisive victory one way or another, or the re-establishment of a military stalemate, would dramatically affect the course of the conflict and the possibilities of a political solution, no matter how flawed or unjust.

As 2016 draws to a close, the Russian-led intervention into Aleppo has led to virtually the entire city falling under the control of regime-aligned forces, begging the question: What next?…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Raqqa.

I'm not sure anything did go wrong. As far as I can see, the crushing of Fatah al-Sham in Aleppo and all the other Islamist nutcases can only be a good thing…

Yea, seems to me they're doing a lot better than they guys in Mosul.

Of course, there is a heavy priced paid by all the civilians, in both cities, I suspect.

Still, better to get it over with fairly quickly, than to let things drag out endlessly.

Let me see…

Russians…

Fighting in a city…

Historical victories…

Yep, Russsians win meat grinders.

I think they had a better strategic advantage than the Iraqi troops – the Fateh al-Sham and others were half-starved and battered by a long siege and continual bombardment. The Iraqis haven't managed to starve out the Daesh troops and won't, or can't, maintain a tactical mass bombing campaign.

This is one of these 20th century wars where loads of people die horribly and the sooner the war is concluded the less people die horribly.

The western media advances the establishment narrative that things went wrong in Syria because the outcome isn't what we're looking for. Arab Spring is supposed to spread liberal democracy throughout the ME, with secular unity governments "for the people" replacing decades-long dynastic dictatorships in countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria. It was a gross miscalculation by the west (as in US and the EU) that regime changes could survive internal forces like the underlying sunni-shia schism and external factors like interventions by regional and foreign powers for greater influence.

If we change our globalist mindset and stop deceiving ourselves that we can make the world a better place by remaking other countries in our own image according to our own ideals, we could get along better with them and they might even hate us a bit less.

Here is an idea. U.S. intervention stops at the border and it becomes someone else problem. Also Defense agreements like Nato for example are not intervention.

28mm Fanatik – PLUS ONE MANY TIMES

The US has sent another 200 Spec Operators into Syria. In prep for the assault on Raqqa. Which appears will mostly be Kurds.

If we change our globalist mindset and stop deceiving ourselves that we can make the world a better place by remaking other countries in our own image according to our own ideals, we could get along better with them and they might even hate us a bit less.

Very true, two good examples is just look at Iraq and Libya. In Both locations being under a dictator, as bad as it was, was generally better than now. And without those 2 tyrants many more lives have be lost. Which was just the opposite that was hoped to be achieved.

As far as A'stan. They are completely stuck in the past once you go outside of Kabul. And Kabul is certainly not up West standards. Never will be … And they don't want to be.

The entire country is a complete write off at this point. They don't want democracy. They want to stay in their forever tribal/ethnic war.

This is one of these 20th century wars where loads of people die horribly and the sooner the war is concluded the less people die horribly.

For better or worse that the situation. The longer you fight the more people die.

The problem with wars of ideology, like the fight with DAESH, is that you need to kill all the ideologues in order to stop the fighting.

As we discussed on another thread.
Legion 4

". And lengthens the conflict, etc. … And many non-combatants die either way … "

PMC317

… absolutely. A short and brutal war will have less casualties than a long drawn out one; and both are absolutely last resort options.

Legion 4

But in many corners the academic intellectuals don't see it that way. Which in turn causes conflicts to last longer and many non-combatants [and combatants] die either way. It is estimated the liberation of France in WWII. The Allies killed 60,000 French civilians. A horrible figure … but to effectively defeat the Germans it was sadly "the cost of doing business" … Again War is a very "bad business" … regardless of the economic concerns … bloodshed is very much part of the equation.

Now I'm not saying disregard CD completely. But again in the long run more deaths occur no matter what.

And of course, fanatical insurgents, like Daesh, use that against the West. As we see, they use entire populations as human shields/hostages, etc., … If Daesh knew they couldn't get away with this sort of method. They'd probably cease to use it.

The intellectuals academics say well how would you feel if those civilians killed were your kin, etc. ? The sad bottom line is the math of this sort of thing. Better to lose 1000 today than 10,000 tomorrow. So how would the intellectual academics feel now if some of those 10,000 that survived were their kin ? Again, I'm not saying disregard CD … but be very much more realistic.

In this paradigm some say this creates more jihadis, etc., … At this point, IMO, that camel has left the tent long ago. They are going to be radicalized and join regardless. And just like in conventional warfare, if the enemy reinforces troops, leaders etc. You just kill them too. Until their losses exceed their abilities to get more replacements, leaders, etc., … And lose the will to fight.

You just kill them too. Until their losses exceed their abilities to get more replacements, leaders, etc., … And lose the will to fight.

And that worked so well in Afghanistan and Iraq (or Vietnam or Algeria)?

The real war is won when jihadi ideology is discredited and the principle supporters are removed.

Neither of that is happening.

There is a refusal in the West to acknowledge that conservative Islamism is the root cause of Islamic terrorism/Islamic insurgency. That kind of thinking is regarded as racist thought crime in the West.

There is an even bigger refusal to stop the powers that support spread of violent Islamism – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and UAE as well as Pakistan.

If we fought WWII in the same manner, we would have declared war on Slovakia and ignored the Germans completely or their fascist ideology.

----------

Meanwhile conservative Islam is on the rise. Even President Obama mentioned the spread of conservative Islamism in previously secularised countries ala Indonesia due to Saudi money.

The future indicates a win for conservative Islam due to the demographic time bomb and Western refusal to do anything to stop it's spread.

The big losers will be moderate Muslims and the loss of the Western homelands in Western Europe (some of which are already massively Islamic – e.g. Brussels is 25% Muslim, Marseilles is up to 40% and growing).

Killing a few jihadis doesn't make a lick of difference in the greater picture. The big wins are influence in the growing Islamic communities around the world. These aren't fought with guns but rather with petro-dollars and Western acquiessence.

The real war is won when jihadi ideology is discredited and the principle supporters are removed.

Until that happens, if ever … you continue to kill them … or as you said "removed" …

There is a refusal in the West to acknowledge that conservative Islamism is the root cause of Islamic terrorism/Islamic insurgency. That kind of thinking is regarded as racist thought crime in the West.

OH NO ! The intellectual academics would get their pitch forks & torches, etc., they'd run out of big words to call you …

There is an even bigger refusal to stop the powers that support spread of violent Islamism – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and UAE as well as Pakistan.

And that seems clear to everyone but the elected leadership, etc., …

And that seems clear to everyone but the elected leadership,

Too much in the way of vested interests. And not just petro-dollars but face saving (how do you admit your "ally" is actually funding terrorism against you), too much obsession with failed international "rules" etc and too much belief in one's own propaganda about individuality that ignores culture.

There's a great line in "Full Metal Jacket" that accurately portrays flawed Western thinking:

"Inside every (Vietnamese)* there's an American trying to get out."

*Editted so I don't get dawghoused.

The point is the West assumes everyone is essentially the same and driven by same drives. They refuse to acknowledge differences caused by culture (including everything from religion to class to moral values to social values, norms, practices). Culture according to Western thinking refers just to different food and not much else.

Thus we go into Afghanistan and Iraq and expect them to "let their inner American out."

No surprises when this fails.

Thus conservative Islamism is ascribed the same values as modern secularised churches (ala modern Church of England).

Thus we assume all others are progressively minded individuals who really want the same things (ie coca cola and liberal democracy).

I generally have to agree with all that … And yes, I'm very familiar with the movie and lines from "FMJ" …

Plus one to Deadles again…

Inside every (Vietnamese)* there's an American trying to get out.

Funny thing is…that's kinda true. When I'm in Hanoi with my mid-20's Vietnamese friends, we are swapping pics of "women who squat" from Instagram, and my buddy asked me how to import a Roush Mustang for a wealthy friend of his. Sadly I only know a guy who works at a Chrysler dealership, and the wealthy guy wouldn't settle for a Dodge Hellcat.

On a more related note, here's an independent Canadian journalist who's been to Syria numerous times: link

Interesting … However, I may be wrong … but it seem the US being their for a decade +. That there may be some "spill over" US influence that is still seen in the Vietnamese culture … ? From what I can tell, the US had left a pretty big footprint in the time the US was very much on the ground.

Plus today with all the media, etc., on the internet, etc., more a "open" society/culture will see more about the who, what, where, how, why, the US and other Western nations do things, predilections, culture, media, etc. But I could be wrong ?

That there may be some "spill over" US influence that is still seen in the Vietnamese culture … ?

That's what I hear about the South. My Hanoi friends say Ho Chi Minh girls are far more Westernized. Most of the Vietnamese women I see on social media sites are from the south but I still haven't made a trip down there to confirm this. Hanoi, on the other hand, is deep Commie Country, and the North is considered comparatively conservative. They are still surprisingly pro-US.

Yes, that is what I pick up from the various media sources, etc., as again I'm not there. And fact that they are surprisingly "pro-US". Seems to me in the long run …it could be said, both sides have "won" the war.

Plus today with all the media, etc., on the internet, etc., more a "open" society/culture will see more about the who, what, where, how, why, the US and other Western nations do things, predilections, culture, media, etc. But I could be wrong ?

Western consumer goods and pop culture do not make culture.

Culture involves a lot of things we don't think about – family relationships, the status of the individual in society, the basis of how we think about ourselves, the overriding values, attitudes to law and order, attitudes to change etc etc.

Look at the Japanese – sure they dress Western but their culture is completely different in terms of individuality being frowned upon, traditions are deeply held, there are set relationships that are very deeply engrained, concepts of honor are important, avoidance of conflict in every day matters etc.

It's why Muslims struggle to integrate into the West compared to many Asians.

Asians are collectivist and have strong belief in respect for elders and conflict avoidance. It means they slip into Western society more easily, even if they don't assimilate 100%.

Arabs are collectivist but in a different manner – their religion overrides everything and their loyalty is to their family or clan. Given their religious ideology is basically belligerent/confrontational (much like Christianity was) it means relationships with others are often confrontational/belligerent.

Arabs are hostile to change because of their culture. Asians nominally are but their entrenched respect for government/elders (basically Confucianism) means their leaders have been able to turn these countries around.

And religion is still important even to us atheists or secular types. A British or American secularist/atheist is shaped by the Christian roots of his/her culture. These cultural roots are everywhere – individualism itself comes from Christian teachings that everyone is to be respected and worthy of god's love. And individualism is strongest in Protestant Anglo-Saxon countries where the reformation re-emphasised the individual's rights coupled with British political/social spirit of freedom stemming from Magna Carta.

Over time these ideas have morphed and shed it's religious aspects.

This has not occurred in other societies. It hasn't even happened in all European countries (e.g. Croatia where I'm from).

I am an atheist by the way and was raised by godless Communists.

I also think Samuel Huntington was very correct with his clash of civilisations thesis published in mid-1990s. Indeed that is what we're seeing these days.

Western consumer goods and pop culture do not make culture.

But in many cases like in Vietnam, the former USSR, etc., it "seeps" in, to a point. It was said, Sex, Blue Jeans and Rock & Roll help with the fall of the old Soviet Union …

It's why Muslims struggle to integrate into the West compared to many Asians.

That has been more and more evident in the past decade or so.

Asians are collectivist and have strong belief in respect for elders and conflict avoidance. It means they slip into Western society more easily, even if they don't assimilate 100%.

The Koreans have "merged" with the US in many ways. But not all. Based on what I saw while in the ROK, '84-'85.

Arabs are collectivist but in a different manner – their religion overrides everything and their loyalty is to their family or clan.

And as we can clearly see that is the seminal reason for many/most of the "problems" with many moslems in the Mid East, some places in Africa plus A'stan and even Pakistan as well. As long as for whatever reasons you can kill someone just because they are from a different religion, tribe, ethnicity, warlord, cleric, etc., … You have not move out of the 15th Century. And no where near the 20th let alone the 21st. A "clash of cultures" with the West was inevitable, again, it appears.

Now it is well known all moslems are not conservative fundamentalists or radical fanatical islamists. But it may be more than the West once believed … it seems.

Arabs are hostile to change because of their culture.

Again that seems very, very, clear to the West. And when you say arab IMO it should be moslem/arab, as the Turks, Iranians, Afghanis, etc., are not "arabs" … But are moslems.

I am an atheist by the way and was raised by godless Communists.

Well you won't be getting wished a Merry Christmas from me than … And probably get coal in your stocking …

The Koreans have "merged" with the US in many ways. But not all. Based on what I saw while in the ROK, '84-'85.

I'm sure if you bug deep enough you'd see some very different Confucian values.

I had a friend who did teaching in South Korea in 2001-03.

She loved it but found the culture very patriarchal and chauvinistic. She was even insulted in the streets for smoking (apparently Korean women do not smoke in public). There was a few other times when she experienced direct rudeness on account of being a Western and very independent woman.

Also Westerners seldom experience foreign cultures in a real way even when living with locals. We all put on masks for foreigners (that kind of hospitality seems to be universal).

But how we behave between each other is vastly different to how we interact with foreigners.

People think Croats are wonderful and hospitable. They are to tourists.

Between each other they're belligerent, controlling, close minded, corrupt (subSaharan African level corruption) and bigoted. Not all of course, but it's the prevailing value set and behaviour.

You actually see it a lot with Asians – to us Westerners they behave so meek, non-confrontational and gentle. Yet they're very different in real life.

I've never actually experienced an Asian reveal any of their real self (Australian born/raised Asians are an exception of course but they've been raised much differently to someone living in China).

And as we can clearly see that is the seminal reason for many/most of the "problems" with many moslems in the Mid East, some places in Africa plus A'stan and even Pakistan as well. As long as for whatever reasons you can kill someone just because they are from a different religion, tribe, ethnicity, warlord, cleric, etc., … You have not move out of the 15th Century. And no where near the 20th let alone the 21st. A "clash of cultures" with the West was inevitable, again, it appears.

Now it is well known all moslems are not conservative fundamentalists or radical fanatical islamists. But it may be more than the West once believed … it seems.

As stated, I think even atheists/secularists are formed by their culture, even if they don't ascribe to the ideology.

I've known secular/atheistic Arabs and Iranians who viewed themselves as "progressive" and "Westernised."

Yet they shared a lot of similar traits with their religious. conservative brethren – a hatred of Israel and Jews, a distrust in America and a general hostile attitude to the Western cultures they believe they have adopted. They're not open to any discussion about Islam (even though they're nominally atheists/secularists)

It's how they were raised before they became secular/atheist. And it's not necessarily "direct" propaganda. It's how every day life flows.

And this flows to all elements of life – North Asian and North European cultures (including Anglo-Saxon colonies) facilitate collective action so they've been very successful at developing advanced economies with good standards of living.

A lot of Islamic cultures struggle with this as do a lot of African ones and even South and Eastern European ones.

Hence in 1960 South Korea was poorer than Ghana yet today South Korea is a major economic powerhouse and Ghana has stagnated.

Thus many Eastern European and former Soviet countries have gone backwards since fall of Communism and haven't been able to get back to even Communist living standards.

In essence modern progressive Communism repressed their cultures which were adverse to modern economic/social development.

After artificially implanted Communism was removed, they reverted back to their old ways.

Thus Afghanistan is still a backwards hellhole despite chewing up billions, if not trillions in development funding.

You can't beat culture

Well you won't be getting wished a Merry Christmas from me than … wink And probably get coal in your stocking …

I still do Christmas with my wife's family – who are also irreligious or atheists. I believe that's called "cultural appropriation." :P

As for my Christmas stocking, I'll be getting lots of Satanic heavy metal albums and memorabilia. I'm sure JC would approve! :P

I was in the ROK in the US ARMY so we really didn't spend much time with many civilians. Just those in the nearby villages. Basically Poor Country folks. And the ROK attached to our unit. They were all college grads, from wealthy families and spoke English.

culture very patriarchal and chauvinistic.

Of that there is no doubt. I know some of the Koreans in Seoul didn't like American GIs. But in the countryside near the DMZ they don't feel that way.

I've known secular/atheistic Arabs and Iranians who viewed themselves as "progressive" and "Westernised."

Yet they shared a lot of similar traits with their religious. conservative brethren – a hatred of Israel and Jews, a distrust in America and a general hostile attitude to the Western cultures they believe they have adopted. They're not open to any discussion about Islam (even though they're nominally atheists/secularists)

As I said, it is well known all moslems are not conservative fundamentalists or radical fanatical islamists. But it may be more than the West once believed.

But we have to be careful when we say those types of things around here. The intellectual academics will get their torches and pitch forks. And say things like we are racists, etc. And I'm a believer in American Exceptionalism, etc. Use as kinds of big words to say what bed people we are, etc., …

Thus Afghanistan is still a backwards hellhole despite chewing up billions, if not trillions in development funding.

I completely agree. They really are the land that time forgot. And have proven to be huge sink hole absorbing blood & treasure from the West. Nothing anyone can do to help them anymore. They really need to be left to their own devises.

Interesting observation … You are an atheist and product of Communist influence. And I a former US Cold War "Warrior", trained to stop the Godless Red Peril from world domination. But yet we agree more than disagree it seems ? Hmm … ?

Yes many in the US still celebrate Christmas in the "US way". Even some of my Jewish friends. But the few moslems I know, don't do Halloween, Thanksgiving and of course Christmas. And at this point … those holidays generally have little to do with religion to many Americans … Hmm ?

You are an atheist and product of Communist influence. And I a former US Cold War "Warrior", trained to stop the Godless Red Peril from world domination. But yet we agree more than disagree it seems ? Hmm … ?

I grew up in Australia and saw the benefits of liberal democracy unlike my parents who hate the country and it's people but are happy to sponge off Australian provided social welfare!

The historical truth is that the people who raised humanity out of its historical cycle of endemic war, poverty and plague were those of the Northern European cultures and in particular Anglo-Saxons.

These cultures embraced change, promoted individualism and innovation.

This truth has not changed even today. The world is still driven by Northern European types and their colonial progeny. The exception is that now Japan is also a major contributor to science (but not social or political thought).

Today an Indian might be a brilliant software engineer but he/she goes to the USA or Europe to be able to effectively exploit his/her talent. Indian culture and its political/social/economic structures does not support it.

It's not racism. The issue is culture and how it impacts social, economic and political structures.

According to the UN, the reprisals are now beginning.

Around 90 civilians have been shot out of hand this morning.

Deadles – plus one… this is making me look like a sycophant now.

Bangorstu – ah yes, reprisals. Inevitable regardless of who wins frankly. Even the YPG/YPJ and SDF have shot people out of hand – and they're still the cleanest side in this appallin mess.

The historical truth is that the people who raised humanity out of its historical cycle of endemic war, poverty and plague were those of the Northern European cultures and in particular Anglo-Saxons.

These cultures embraced change, promoted individualism and innovation.

Agreed … but again some of the intellectual academics see that as racism … saying or alluding to one culture, society, etc. is 'better" than another at something … I don't see it that way. Especially as the facts prove it out …

This truth has not changed even today. The world is still driven by Northern European types and their colonial progeny. The exception is that now Japan is also a major contributor to science (but not social or political thought).

Again Agreed … but be careful of the intellectual academics reaching for their torches and pitch forks.

It's not racism. The issue is culture and how it impacts social, economic and political structures.

Yep … that certainly appears to me to be the case.

Deadles – plus one… this is making me look like a sycophant now.

Me too !!!!!

Bangorstu – ah yes, reprisals. Inevitable regardless of who wins frankly.

Yes, it is all over the daily news feeds. And I agree … no matter what these are going to occur … no matter what. Even once Daesh and AQ are less of a threat. As well as all the other very factional hatreds, between so many in places of the moslem world, as I mentioned before.

And again … there is absolutely nothing the US, West, or UN can do. Until the many moslem/arab factions decide to move into modern times. Which again, seems like it is very unlikely any time soon …

PMC317 – indeed it's a rough parish, and I guess some people just need killing.

The UN is mentioning women and children though.

You can't beat culture

True. Western ideas and values have influence to a certain extent to the younger generations in the cities, but eventually they reach a point where culture and tradition kick in and a country pushes back to maintain its national and cultural identity.

Some among the younger generation who embrace western culture often end up moving to America or other western nations and become assimilated in their countries of choice, but there are also those who resent the "cultural pollution" and stay behind.

The unwelcome spread of Americanism and its unique brand of liberal democracy have been an ongoing hot topic, the latest being its perpetuation on the internet:

link

indeed it's a rough parish, and I guess some people just need killing.

IIRC, one of my NCOs said something like, "There nothing wrong with killing people, just so the right people die." …

The UN is mentioning women and children though.

Whether the UN mentions it or not, thru out the region it seems to be the norm … Many if not most of the locals don't see CD like the West does. Sadly … it's been that way for a very long time …

Thing is, even our approach to CD is very recent, and we don't always adhere to it. There's plenty of dead Yemeni, Afghan, Pakistani, and Iraqi kids and women who can attest to that.

The difference is we usually kill them with air power, rather than dragging them out into the street and shooting them. Usually.

Generally true … but non-combatants are not directly targeted by the US, The West. In most situations it was accidental. But yes, it still happens. However, with many from those regions/areas it is almost policy, the standard …

Don't think we in the West can be too sanctimonious about civilians being killed deliberately.

Leaving aside the death toll during our own forays into the region, there's the Balkan Wars to think about, plus of course various colonial/COIN operations….

Given the Assad family's MO though, this was inevitable.

As for what went wrong, the rebels spent too much time fighting each other. According to the BBC, the FSA and Al-Nusra have been fighting each other rather than saving it for Assad's forces.

Whereas I can totally understand the idea of getting rid of al-Nusra, a more pragmatic attitude might have been worthwhile.

The Bosnians regarded Iranian volunteers as death obsessed idiots. They didn't turn them away though… just ensured they got plenty of opportunity to martyr themselves.

Don't think we in the West can be too sanctimonious about civilians being killed deliberately.

Nothing sanctimonious about. If the US/West wanted to kill everybody, not just combatants but non-combatants. Things would be very, very, much worse. Like what Aleppo looks like but in many, many, more locations in the region and even A'stan, etc., for that matter. No need for WMDs.

They is nothing about moral superiority involved. The West is just better at killing off other humans in large numbers.
Two World Wars and many smaller ones proves that.

So if the West was that "careless" about civilian loses … there would be a whole lot more jihadis, islamists, terrorists, dead. Along with much larger non-combatant deaths. That has to be clear to everybody …

The Bosnians regarded Iranian volunteers as death obsessed idiots. They didn't turn them away though… just ensured they got plenty of opportunity to martyr themselves.

And now they've got fundamentalist Islam growing in what was once a completely secular state of affairs. They've even had terror attacks.

This is what happens when you accept Saudi and Iranian money and help.

The West is just better at killing off other humans in large numbers.

That award goes to the Cambodians (killed 25% of their own population in several years) and the Chinese (what like 50-70 million Chinese murdered/starved during Mao's reign).

Yes, I was referring to the West compared to some moslem/arab countries/regions, etc. We find ourselves currently involved with. But No doubt, it is well known that the Cambodians and Mao killed many of their own people. However I was not trying to see who can be the best mass murders, etc. Just that the West was pretty good at it. For better or worse …

We're good at it technically speaking.

But we apply it poorly and don't get much in the way of results. Thus the real supporters of terrorism (gulf state Arabs) are given called allies and hang out with the Queen and the POTUS.

Acting decisively in 2001 against these powers would've been much more effective than 15 years of endemic warfare that's resulted in the implosion of several states, growth of conservative Islam, destabililsation of Europe, growth of terrorism etc.

Instead we keep arming them with state of the art weapons and turning a blind eye to their terrorist links.

If we fought WWII like we have fought the war on terror, we would've:

1. Not gone to war with Germany (ie Saudi Arabia et al).
2. Declared war on Slovakia (ie Afghanistan)
3. Invaded Poland ourselves (ie Iraq)
4. Let Soviets take control of Poland (ie Iran)
5. Let the Germans screw everyone else over whilst supplying them with guns.

And to add in a Pacific slant:

6. Give the Japanese a green light to create their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Acting decisively in 2001 against these powers would've been much more effective than 15 years of endemic warfare that's resulted in the implosion of several states, growth of conservative Islam, destabililsation of Europe, growth of terrorism etc.

No … it's all the West's fault for all the ills of the islamic/moslem world. Just ask them …

The Saudis are adept in acting behind the scenes and appearing outwardly benign, so going to war with them is a tough sell from a public relations standpoint. American citizens can't even sue them for 9/11. On the other hand, it's much easier to justify invading an overtly aggressive country with a history of violence like Iraq.

What we should do is treat the Saudis no different than Iran and wage a shadow war against them, but the Saudis make a lot of politicians rich, buys billions of dollars of American military hardware and control the flow of oil. So they continue to get a free pass.

Given that the Saudis are waging a shadow war against us by funding Salafist and Wahhabi mosques and madrassas across Europe and the US, I think returning the favour is actually probably a very good idea indeed.

The Saudis are as bad or worse than Iran. Both massive supporters of islamic terrorism. Just a different side of the same coin. They are not friends of the West …

The only difference between SA and Iran is that the former doesn't spout off all the time about "destroying Israel" really.

Pretty much … Or chant "Death to America" in the streets …

No, they just fund the people that act on said insane political-religious motivations…!

Indeed …