Would you mind not using euphemisms? If you are advocating direct military action against Iran over this issue, please state what specific form you believe this action should take.
In the meantime, this seems a rather flimsy excuse to go all medieval on Iran’s ass and, in the absence of further information, is utterly disproporionate to the issue. The nationalities of the alleged spies arrested is not clear at the moment, but it seems unlikely that any US citizens have been taken into Iranian custody as part of the alleged ring, and even if they were, it’s always been my understanding that them’s the breaks in intelligence operations. Since when do countries go to war over the arrest of their intelligence operatives, especially if they are mainly citizens of the country being spied upon?
You do remember when we overthrew the elected president Mossadegh in Iran. What have they done that reaches that level? We put them under a dictator, the Shah for decades .
What do we do to spies we find in America? Generally a long, long prison term. We put a spy ring in Iran but somehow that is OK?
Their brand of Wahhabi Islam is exactly the kind subscribed to by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. One cannot deny the continued support and aid they give to foreign terrorist groups to spread their ideology, nor the cleric and schools that still teach them. In a country where even peaceful protests against the government is not allowed, it would be extremely silly to think that these schools and clerics do not operate without the backing of the government
Well, one can deny it, I suppose, because the US State Department has made the political decision not to put Saudi Arabia on its official terrorism state sponsors.
The Ben Laden family built most of Saudi Arabia. They are a multi millionaire family and very powerful. The Ben Ladens and many other Saudis financed Osama.
Of the 19 highjackers, 17 were Saudis.
They have the oil.
The State Department chose to not place the Saudi government on that list because they can distinguish between religious beliefs and politics and recognize that not all adherents of any religious movement are guarateed to march in lock step.
It is true that Wahhabism is the version of Islam that is practiced by the majority of Saudis–including the Royal family and Osama Bin Laden. However, that is because that is the variety of Islam that has prevailed in that corner of the world for about 200 years. However, They do not all share identical political beliefs. bin Laden actually “declared war” against the Saudi government before he “declared war” against the U.S. He considered the Royal family and many of its citizens to be too lax in their practice of Islam and after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, he protested against the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. His continued protests of U.S. presence on Saudi land caused the Saudi government to exile him in 1992. He continued to condemn the Saudi government throughout his life and, beginning in 2003, al Qaida actually began launching attacks against Arabs in Saudi Arabia.
Whatever prayers they say each Friday, and whatever religious tracts they read outside the Quran, it is not true that the Saudi government is a “terrorist” organization just because most of its members follow Wahhabism.
It is probably true that there are individual members of the Saudi government, (and even members of the royal family), who support al Qaida, but that simply indicates that views in that part of the world are as disjointed as views everywhere in the world and any such support has to be undertaken in secret, since the Saudi government and al Qaida are in direct conflict.
I guess I said two things. I want to come to the table with Iran but in a way that will be pointful with intent to distribute our message clearly and without hesitation. I foresee a standoff because of Iran’s record.
Sarcasm only insults and I am picking up on the fact that 40% of all replies that are coming from members are injury and sarcasm. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and I don’t appreciate it. Thank you.
There will be no stand-off over this issue unless the Iranians captured Americans in their round-up. There will be diplomatic efforts if Iran convicts those American hikers of being part of the spy ring, but of course there are already efforts to have the hikers returned.
It’s been a week since you suggested we go to war with Iran over the arrest of alleged spies. Do you still think the U.S. should attack Iran?
This tends to be a sarcastic crowd. Posting information about oneself that appears to be an effort to establish oneself as an “authority” tends to elicit such sarcasm.
Direct insults are prohibited in this forum, but snide remarks are not.
I don’t believe (correct me if I am mistaken) that I quite put it in terms as “go to war” but I do think we should advocate for any foreign aid that we have recruited that has been captured. By the way, The news hasn’t said a word about it so far as I know.