Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:37 PM Jan 2016

All for the sake of winning an argument over religion.

Saudi Arabia executed a Shiite cleric for calling on the kingdom to allow his sect freedom to worship. Violent Iranian radicals tried to burn down the Saudi embassy in retaliation. The Saudis, in turn, have broken off diplomatic relations with Iran and expelled her diplomats from the kingdom. Now the Saudi foreign minister has announced his country will go to the United Nations Security Council to call for punishment of the Iranian government. Unless these heightened sectarian tensions are somehow defused (and quickly) there is a good chance we may see a full-blown religious war spread across the entire Middle East.



Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir (AFP)


Saudi-Iranian Conflict Threatens to Explode Into Region-Wide Sectarian War


The conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia over Riyadh's execution of a prominent Shia cleric is escalating, threatening to turn the region's ongoing conflicts into wars of religion, warns Russian Middle East expert Vladimir Ahmedov.

On Sunday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that "divine vengeance will befall Saudi politicians" for "the unjustly spilled blood" of prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr, executed by the Saudis on Saturday. Considered a terrorist by Saudi authorities for his criticism of the government, calls for free elections and demands that authorities respect Saudi Shias' rights, al-Nimr's execution sparked outrage and an escalation of diplomatic tensions across the Middle East, but only a cautious criticism from Riyadh's allies in Washington and Brussels.

The cleric was killed along with 46 others in the country's largest mass execution in decades, sparking anger and violent protests in Shia areas of Saudi Arabia, as well as Bahrain, Indian-controlled Kashmir, Pakistan, and Iran, where protesters stormed the Saudi Embassy in the Iranian capital and attempted to set the building on fire.

(snip)

In Syria, Iran has offered the secular government of Bashar al-Assad, embattled by over five years of war, political, economic and military assistance against a coalition of Saudi, Turkish and Qatari-funded jihadist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, the al-Nusra Front and Daesh (ISIL/ISIS). Furthermore, in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has formed a military coalition to try to crush the Shia tribesmen known as the Houthis, who overthrew the government of Saudi-backed president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi last year. Accusing the coreligionists of being a proxy for Iran (claims which both the Houthis and Tehran have denied), Riyadh launched a military campaign, including a naval blockade, prompting criticism that the intervention has caused a 'humanitarian catastrophe'.

(snip)



Read more at: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160103/1032641113/saudi-execution-nimr-iran.html



Update:

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160104/1032646885/iran-saudi-arabia-ties-execution.html


27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
All for the sake of winning an argument over religion. (Original Post) another_liberal Jan 2016 OP
The sooner EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #1
Yes . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #3
And they haven't for years. EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #5
Dark Ages bullshit that threatens us all. Lizzie Poppet Jan 2016 #2
Theirs is a benightedly Medieval social and political system . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #6
It is really an argument over power and influence, not religion. kwassa Jan 2016 #4
Saudi Arabia in its current form would have disappeared long ago . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #7
No. Anybody that sits on that much oil would be powerful. kwassa Jan 2016 #8
I am not cynical enough about the human race to believe that . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #13
Read more world history. kwassa Jan 2016 #14
I have taught World History . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #16
well, I don't think you are correct ... kwassa Jan 2016 #20
That is your opinion . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #21
In any potential war, always ask who stands to profit Gman Jan 2016 #9
The Trojan war was not, I'm certain, really about taking back "Menelaus's Helen" . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #12
Back In Undergrad. . . ProfessorGAC Jan 2016 #17
The Trojan war is deeply shrouded in the mists of the distant past . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #18
I'm pretty sure the war against Ilium predated Greek colonization of the Black Sea Bucky Jan 2016 #22
There were no Mycenaean Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast, you are correct. another_liberal Jan 2016 #24
Yeah, That Makes Sense ProfessorGAC Jan 2016 #23
Yes, I think your professor was sharing an important insight . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #25
I Agree ProfessorGAC Jan 2016 #26
Invisible, omnipotent, immortal, and EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO ANY PERSONAL INSULTS Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #10
Apt warning . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #11
religious nuttery Skittles Jan 2016 #15
Two blind roommates trying to have a fight with broken bottles . . . hatrack Jan 2016 #19
it is all so fucking ridiculous Skittles Jan 2016 #27

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
1. The sooner
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:39 PM
Jan 2016

The west ditches SA the better.

Of course the US is not ditching them. They're helping them commit war crimes and selling them billions of dollars of weapons a year.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
3. Yes . . .
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:46 PM
Jan 2016

The Saudi monarchy provides tens of billions of dollars in profits for our MIC.

No wonder our government had nothing officially to say about the kingdom's Islamic State style mass execution of religious dissidents and critics.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
5. And they haven't for years.
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:50 PM
Jan 2016

While at the same time our MIC and corporations repeatedly invaded Iran, etc etc.

Most Americans don't even know the US military is involved the collective punishment of Yemen right now. To help SA out.

Criminals. Meh. Can't expect much better I guess.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
2. Dark Ages bullshit that threatens us all.
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:42 PM
Jan 2016

If they kept the bloodshed over superstitious nonsense to themselves, I'd not be nearly as concerned. But they don't...

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
6. Theirs is a benightedly Medieval social and political system . . .
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:50 PM
Jan 2016

And we sell them as many jet fighters and Abrams tanks as they want. It is simply profit-driven madness on our part.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
4. It is really an argument over power and influence, not religion.
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:47 PM
Jan 2016

Who will dominate the Middle east, Saudi Arabia or Iran?

religion is a means rather than an end.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
7. Saudi Arabia in its current form would have disappeared long ago . . .
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:53 PM
Jan 2016

If not for the U. S. military and political power that is propping them up.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
8. No. Anybody that sits on that much oil would be powerful.
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:56 PM
Jan 2016

If it wasn't the US, it would be Britain, Germany, France, Japan, China .....

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
13. I am not cynical enough about the human race to believe that . . .
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 09:11 PM
Jan 2016

Not all world powers have foreign policies as dominated by the desires of multinational energy companies as is ours.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
14. Read more world history.
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 09:29 PM
Jan 2016

This isn't cynicism, this is realism. The desire for power and self-advancement is universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

Read the history of European powers in the Middle East after the Ottoman empire dies in World War I.

The League of Nations granted French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and British Mandate for Mesopotamia (later Iraq) and British Mandate for Palestine, later divided into Mandatory Palestine and Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946). The Ottoman Empire's possessions in the Arabian Peninsula became the Kingdom of Hejaz, which was annexed by the Sultanate of Nejd (today Saudi Arabia), and the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen. The Empire's possessions on the western shores of the Persian Gulf were variously annexed by Saudi Arabia (Alahsa and Qatif), or remained British protectorates (Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar) and became the Arab States of the Persian Gulf.




In other words, Britain and France turned much of the region into colonies, and into separate countries where they had not existed before. Iraq was one such invention.

Here is the history of the discovering oil in Saudi Arabia. See how many world powers are involved;
In 1922 King Abdulaziz met a New Zealand mining engineer named Major Frank Holmes. During World War I, Holmes had been to Gallipoli and then Ethiopia, where he first heard rumours of the oil seeps of the Persian Gulf region.[1] He was convinced that much oil would be found throughout the region. After the war, Holmes helped to set up Eastern and General Syndicate Ltd in order, among other things, to seek oil concessions in the region.

In 1923, the king signed a concession with Holmes allowing him to search for oil in eastern Saudi Arabia. Eastern and General Syndicate brought in a Swiss geologist to evaluate the land but he claimed that searching for oil in Arabia would be “a pure gamble”.[1] This discouraged the major banks and oil companies from investing in Arabian oil ventures.

In 1925, Holmes signed a concession with the sheikh of Bahrain, allowing him to search for oil there. He then proceeded to the United States to find an oil company that might be interested in taking on the concession. He found help from Gulf Oil. In 1927, Gulf Oil took control of the concessions that Holmes made years ago. But Gulf Oil was a partner in the Iraq Petroleum Company, which was jointly owned by Royal Dutch/Shell, Anglo-Persian, the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, and "the Near East Development Company, representing the interests of the American companies.[3] The partners had signed up to the “Red Line Agreement” which meant that Gulf Oil was precluded from taking up the Bahrain concession without the consent of the other partners; and they declined.[1] Despite a promising survey in Bahrain, Gulf Oil was forced to transfer its interest to another company, Standard Oil of California(SOCAL), which was not a bound by the Red Line Agreement.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_oil_industry_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
16. I have taught World History . . .
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:23 AM
Jan 2016

And despite a few cherry-picked examples from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, what others have done to help the Saudi Royals is next to nothing when compared to how we have transformed them into a regional power through arms sales, diplomatic assistance and outright political subservience. Don't forget that the Bush family was so thoroughly in thrall to the House of Saud that George H. W. Bush lent them a sizable portion of our active military to defend the kingdom's northern border. Our troops remained there for over a decade after the first Gulf War. George W. Bush even allowed Saudi royal family members living in the United to leave unquestioned by authorities after the Twin Towers attacks, and that was despite some very good evidence several of those individuals had given financial assistance to the (mostly Saudi) terrorists who high-jacked those airliners.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
20. well, I don't think you are correct ...
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 10:45 AM
Jan 2016

The examples are not cherry-picked, they are the actual history of the region, and are mid-twentieth century and later, which indicates to me that you didn't read what I wrote. Also, that you don't know the history of the region, as well.

The Saudis would be a power at any time, simply because of the oil. It is that simple. If it wasn't the US, it would be someone else in our role as their friend. Power is power, and where there is a vacuum, others rush in. If it had 60 years earlier, when colonialism was more in fashion, we would have simply marched in and taken the place as our colony. That is no longer viable, of course.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
12. The Trojan war was not, I'm certain, really about taking back "Menelaus's Helen" . . .
Sun Jan 3, 2016, 09:00 PM
Jan 2016

Last edited Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

And I doubt if any war since has been started over grand ideals, even if they were often used as excuses.

It has been a long time since I last read Homer's Iliad: Helen was Queen of Laconia, a province within Homeric Greece, and the wife of King Menelaus, Agamemnon's nephew.

ProfessorGAC

(64,184 posts)
17. Back In Undergrad. . .
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 08:41 AM
Jan 2016

. . .i had a econ and a history professor both say that the value is creating international trade is that nobody goes to war with someone with whom they're making money. Then, in the history class, he went through a list of wars over the course of a thousand years, and sure enough, he was right. Not one of them occurred between trading partners, even in medieval times. Of course, a lot of them were about land and wealth, but none of them were about sharing the wealth. Where different kingdoms or nations had active trade and wealth sharing, no wars.

He didn't go back as far as the Trojan war, but i'm quite sure you're correct about that.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
18. The Trojan war is deeply shrouded in the mists of the distant past . . .
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 10:30 AM
Jan 2016

However, most experts on the period believe the Mycenaean Greeks were, like their classical era descendants, reliant on grain imports from the fertile lands of what is today southern Ukraine. Those shipments had to pass through the Dardanelles, which was controlled by the city state of Troy. Hence, the likely reason for the outbreak of hostilities was Greek reluctance to continue paying the Trojans tribute for their grain's safe passage.

Bucky

(53,755 posts)
22. I'm pretty sure the war against Ilium predated Greek colonization of the Black Sea
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 11:20 AM
Jan 2016

The historical Ilium (which legendary Troy was based on) was destroyed around 1200-1100 years before the Current Era. Greek colonization of the Black Sea didn't begin for several centuries after that, 8th Century bce at the earliest.

I agree with your point in principle. There was a lot going on in that besides some runaway hottie, though (Julia Roberts as Helen?). The growing Achaean tribes along the western Anatolian coast (not Greece proper as we think of it today) would have gone to war against the Ilians because they were making treaties with the Hittites Empire of central Anatolia. Troy's location looks worth fighting over today for geopolitical reasons, but it wasn't quite so vital to the earliest Greek tribes 3200 years ago. There may have been some trade going thru the Dardenalles Strait then, but it probably wasn't horses--the Achaeans didn't have cavalry fighting ability yet--and it certainly wouldn't have been grains.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
24. There were no Mycenaean Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast, you are correct.
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 03:04 PM
Jan 2016

Both land and sea archaeological finds have begun to suggest a far more wide-spread Minoan trade web than had previously been believed possible. If I remember correctly, the Mycenaean Greeks were competitors with, and (possibly) conquerors of, the Minoans in the period just prior to the Trojan war. There may not have been Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast until centuries later but there was almost certainly trade between Mycenaean Greece and that area.

ProfessorGAC

(64,184 posts)
23. Yeah, That Makes Sense
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 11:55 AM
Jan 2016

So he could have used it as an example, but didn't go back past the early 2nd millenia.

Seems pretty consistent over time, doesn't it?

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
25. Yes, I think your professor was sharing an important insight . . .
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 03:16 PM
Jan 2016

Something like: "Don't be fooled by those who try to sell you a war for their own profit."

ProfessorGAC

(64,184 posts)
26. I Agree
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 03:18 PM
Jan 2016

Of course this was just after Vietnam had ended. (I started college in September '73) So, there was probably a lot of MIC sentiment going around college campuses.

hatrack

(59,387 posts)
19. Two blind roommates trying to have a fight with broken bottles . . .
Mon Jan 4, 2016, 10:32 AM
Jan 2016

. . . thanks to an argument about which shade of pink to paint the bathroom.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»All for the sake of winni...