My take on the Saudi Arabia issue.

[Kirkrapine]

Yet they barely mentioned the recent Iranian uprising, and the brutal squashing of it (even women who dared to publicly take off their veil are now in prison).

Cite? Haven't heard of any Iranian uprising since the "Twitter rebellion" a few years ago.

 

[Kirkrapine]

The dumb fucks don't understand the motivations of the Turks vis a vis the Iranians . . .

And what would those be?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Your news doesn't report the ongoing strikes?

Maybe you need to expand your news sourcing.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Your news doesn't report the ongoing strikes?

Maybe you need to expand your news sourcing.

A strike is not an uprising.

 

[SpeareChucker]

The ongoing protests since the tail end of 2017, of which the strikes are a continuation, have led the Iranian people to again believe in their own power to confront a highly oppressive regime on their own terms.

The strike is unprecedented in its scope and strength of unity. Though this is not the first trucker strike in recent years – the largest was limited to just four cities in March of 2016 – none have reached the extensive and broad reach of this one. The current strike has spread to over 249 cities in all of Iran’s 31 provinces. Footage of striking truckers resisting security forces, encouraging unity, admonishing strikebreakers, parading empty loads on the nation’s highways, has spiked on social media networks such as Twitter, Telegram, and other platforms.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/north...n-afshar/iran-gripped-by-strikes-and-protests

 

[HisArpy]

Your news doesn't report the ongoing strikes?

Maybe you need to expand your news sourcing.

You could post every possible link to raw video of the protests and he'd dismiss it with a; "Pshaw, that's only a few hundred thousand peasants rioting in the street against the government. That's not an "uprising".

He sees only what he wants to see.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Could be, but most revolutions start with general strikes, the rest are usually military coups.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Could be, but most revolutions start with general strikes, the rest are usually military coups.

Neither of those apply to the most important revolutions -- the American, the French, the Russian, the Chinese. I don't believe they even apply to the failed revolutions of 1848. In fact, I can't think of any revolution that began as a general strike, nor of any military coup that fairly deserves the name of "revolution." The 1926 general strike in the UK seemed at the time like it might lead to a revolution, but it fizzled out.

 

[beew]

Neither of those apply to the most important revolutions -- the American, the French, the Russian, the Chinese. I don't believe they even apply to the failed revolutions of 1848. In fact, I can't think of any revolution that began as a general strike, nor of any military coup that fairly deserves the name of "revolution." The 1926 general strike in the UK seemed at the time like it might lead to a revolution, but it fizzled out.

Aah, got it. You were referring to the technical terms, you weren't trying to diminish it's importance. (I hope).

The aftermath of it was significant: among all the arrests, 20 women arrested for taking off their veil (the Islamic creeds from the 1970's Islamic Revolution prohibits it). And official clamping down on teaching English in primary schools under the 'it's propaganda for Western, anti-Iranian values'. Probably as a prelude to a more covert trend.

I met several Persian and Arab immigrants. And the common expectations were times again confirmed: Iranians came across as much more open to Europeans, and less radical in terms of Islam..

Many of those that I talked to were critical of and disliked their homegrown brand of Islam. They referred with pride and nostalgia to a time before 'the Arab invasion.", to Zoroastrism and Persian culture.
Yes, it has to do with racism too, because some of think of themselves as being above Arabs. But it has to do with pride in their culture too, and a certain feeling of being oppressed by an ego-alien totalitarian regime.

ETA
Grammar

 

[Kirkrapine]

Aah, got it. You were referring to the technical terms, you weren't trying to diminish it's importance. (I hope).

It's clearly not important in a revolutionary sense.

I met several Persian and Arab immigrants. And the common expectations were times again confirmed: Iranians came across as much more open to Europeans, and less radical in terms of Islam..

Well, of course. Those who felt otherwise would stay in Iran.

 

[beew]

It's clearly not important in a revolutionary sense.

Well, of course. Those who felt otherwise would stay in Iran.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Can you elaborate more?

Are you suggesting that most Iranians are radical Islamists - a worry in itself - and that I'm idealising them as a nation,
or that Iran's official form of Islam isn't as radical and oppressive as the West claims?

And I'm not trying to attack you, as much as I dislike what I think that you're implying.
Because you made some valid points.
And my perception of the Middle East dynamics has been quite confusing and has fluctuated so f... much.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Are you suggesting that most Iranians are radical Islamists . . .

No, but I have read (in The Nation) that a solid plurality are, and would violently resist any effort to fundamentally change the system.

And my perception of the Middle East dynamics has been quite confusing and has fluctuated so f... much.

Their fault, not yours. It's like with the "Irish Question" -- every time Gladstone got close to the answer, the Irish changed the question. (That's from Richard Armour, I believe.)

 

[SpeareChucker]

Neither of those apply to the most important revolutions -- the American, the French, the Russian, the Chinese. I don't believe they even apply to the failed revolutions of 1848. In fact, I can't think of any revolution that began as a general strike, nor of any military coup that fairly deserves the name of "revolution." The 1926 general strike in the UK seemed at the time like it might lead to a revolution, but it fizzled out.

You're wrong. Go back and read and the general strikes of the French and Russian Revolutions.

 

[bellisarius]

You're wrong. Go back and read and the general strikes of the French and Russian Revolutions.

Striking was not a viable option for the American colonies. They were sources of raw material and a market for English manufactured finished goods so the colonists resorted to boycotts and smuggling. Both of which activities were in essence proxies for strikes.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Especially smuggling, arrrrgggg....

 

[beew]

Hei belisarius, spearechucker &.
You Need to continue the open ended discussion around comparing the two radicalized branches of Islam and Middle Eastern - European - US geopolitics.

Whether 100% or only partially real news, the Asia Bibi case (the mob of Muslim men who took to the streets, angered by her being spared the death penalty, UK's reluctance to grant her asylum) is very significant & brings these issues to the forefront.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Hei belisarius, spearechucker &.
You Need to continue the open ended discussion around comparing the two radicalized branches of Islam and Middle Eastern - European - US geopolitics.

There are Sunni radicals and Shi'a radicals. They differ on points of religious doctrine, but I can see no other important differences between them.

 

[beew]

There are Sunni radicals and Shi'a radicals. They differ on points of religious doctrine, but I can see no other important differences between them.

If you keep making smartass statements such as these, I'm going to put you on ignore.

You're either ignorant on the topic, or condescending (assuming that others are) or playing games fueled by your Intersectionality paranoia.
I suspect the latter.

No, it's not "racism" that pulls posters towards the GB conservative group.
It's interactions such as these,

 

[Kirkrapine]

If you keep making smartass statements such as these, I'm going to put you on ignore.

You're either ignorant on the topic, or condescending (assuming that others are) or playing games fueled by your Intersectionality paranoia.
I suspect the latter.

No, it's not "racism" that pulls posters towards the GB conservative group.
It's interactions such as these,

Well, what differences do you see?

 

[beew]

Well, what differences do you see?

I’m interested in finding out about geopolitics , in this case related to the Middle East.

If you want to showcase how clever you are (I suspect that you know quite a bit on the topic), try to discuss around such posts + in light of Asia Bibi’s- UK asylum controversy.

Khashoggi was, and is, billed as a voice of "progressivism" in the Mid-East for his criticism of the Saud's. Yet at the same time he was very much a card carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hopefully the readers memory isn't so short that they don't recall the "Arab Spring" and what happened in Egypt during the demonstrations and after the fall of Mubarak. A US reporterette gang raped in the streets of Cairo. After the election of Morsi and the raising of the Brotherhood to power Coptics, Christians, really anyone not a fundamentalist Muslim were murdered or beaten. The churches burned along with many of the parishioners. Egypt spiraled into such a state of chaos that the military had to step in. So much for what the brotherhood says and what the brotherhood does.

Re. Yemen. The Houthi's, being Shia, are very much proxies of Iran. And that's what the conflict is all about. The Saudi's are not about to allow a Shia insurgency to threaten their Southern border. Especially when said insurgents have stated as their ultimate goal the overthrow of the kingdom and taking it for their own. And what ever government they formed would only last as long as it took the Revolutionary Guard to move in and "bring order" to the region.

Iran's oil reserves are dwindling (THEY claim much larger reserves than the experts give them credit for) and the quality of their oil is somewhat better than sludge, but not by much. They do have light crude but no where near as much as the heavy stuff. Getting their hands on the Saudi oil fields AND Mecca/Medina would put them in the drivers seat of the worlds energy markets AND the religion. That is highly unlikely to happen, but the Iranians can dream can't they?

What is the US's goal in all of this? Two fold, world energy market stability. The US achieved energy independence almost a year ago. We don't need oil from anyone...........period. But keeping the Saudi's as an independent arbiter in the market is of great importance. Should Iran ever get their hands on the Arabian fields they and the Russians would be dictating the price of energy for the rest of the world. While the US has no need for their oil, or foreign trade for that matter (of all the developed nations the US is the least dependent on foreign trade) we recognize the chaos that would ensue should the free flow of energy and goods be disrupted to any great degree.

The second goal is to force a regime change in Iran via economic pressures. The belief being that given the opportunity the citizens of Iran would westernize and secularize in rapid order. The people of Iran are no happier with the secret police of the Ayatollah's than they were with the secret police of the Shah. Very soon now (Nov. 4th?) the US sanctions re. Iranian oil goes into effect. Right now China is buying as much Iranian oil as it can lay its hands on ahead of the sanctions. When those sanctions go into effect Iran's already severe economic crisis takes a steep dive towards the bottom. Somewhat later, due to the tarriff's and running out of oil, China's economy will start to tank as well. Which is why, regardless of all their bluster, China is not only coming to the table re. trade talks but putting pressure on Iran as well.

Will it all work out as gamed? Probably not. But hopefully well enough that everyone will relax a bit and life will go on.

 

[beew]

Anyway. I think that I'll just leave it.

People seem less interested in the Asia Bibi case.

 

[mAnn_Tagonist]

Yeah, dumb it down and talk about what paki boi wants you to talk about. Afterall, it's all about him.


ETA
Paki

 

[Kirkrapine]

Khashoggi was, and is, billed as a voice of "progressivism" in the Mid-East for his criticism of the Saud's. Yet at the same time he was very much a card carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The MB is really only slightly more extreme than a Muslim version of Europe's Christian Democrats. It is not something we should think of as a terrorist organization, nor even as a radical Islamist organization.

 

[beew]

The Muslim Brotherhood is really only slightly more extreme than a Muslim version of Europe's Christian Democrats. It is not something we should think of as a terrorist organization, nor even as a radical Islamist organization.

On what do you base such conclusions?

Even University professors have to prove their assertions, by supplementing them with facts.

 

[bellisarius]

On what do you base such conclusions?

Even University professors have to prove their assertions, by supplementing them with facts.

He bases it on extreme ignorance and prejudice.