Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

[Cookiegod]

What’s there to justify? The “world policeman” philosophy of US foreign policy you so despise is based on historical precedents that arose from things like fighting the Nazis, bankrolling the reconstruction of Europe, and preventing the Soviets from steamrolling Europe and half the planet. Its success literally made democratic ideas into democratic norms, built the modern “globalist” status quo, and facilitated the explosion in technological and economic advancement everyone now takes for granted. You’re welcome. If you’d rather define the US by its failures so you can feel like a good person or whatever, nobody’s gonna stop you.

Lol dude. 1) You didn't do s. 2) One doesn't justify the other. Having freed Europe from Nazis (totally not because they declared war) doesn't justify supporting the genocidal maniacs of today.

If you'd rather ignore US by its moral failures, then all right, ignore everything foreign policy related and a great deal of what's going on inside. Unless of course you're willing to warp your moral compass around just about anything your regime does for nationalist pride. Like Sunni head choppers, recreating slave markets in countries where they'd been outlawed since 1853, attacking countless countries across the globe, etc. etc., or also simply lecturing Europeans on democratic norms and freedom. The US. The country where money decides the elections, where the incarceration rate is exorbitantly higher than in the rest of the world, including China and Russia. The country that simultaneously helps the Saudi bombing campaign.

When Saudi Arabia bombs Yemeni school buses with lots of children: "Meh. I'm sure they deserved that."
When Yemen fires back and damages an oil refinery without the cost of life: "OH HOW DARE THEY?!"

[Abdülmecid I]

Cheers, Legio, happy to agree that we disagree. Just a couple of notes: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had not been in the throne for more than 50 years. He was only installed in 1941, following the Soviet-British invasion of Iran. Unless of course you're referring to the imperial institution or the dynasty, in general. As for the factors that led to the great Revolution of 1979, mainstream historiography nowadays concludes that opposition to secularism played only a relatively negligible role. It was never strong enough to motivate the people to go to the streets against a notoriously bloodthirsty regime and, in any case, it was never truly implemented, beyond a superficial level limited to the upper strata of the society (who were anyway ideologically close to the principles of secularism).

The main cause for the popular uprising was the sudden economic decline that succeeded a gradual growth, the social, professional and financial privileges his supporters enjoyed and the corruption of the court and of the magnates surrounding them. The Shah's sloppy initiatives, like the luxurious celebrations in Persepolis, added fuel to the fire, by making a really bad contrast with the impoverished population of the countryside, who lacked even the most basic infrastructure, while the notorious brutality of his police force unnecessarily escalated the situation. From this perspective, the revolutionary authorities achieved much more than the supposedly pro-West emperor, in the sense of a slow democratisation, the formidable improvement in healthcare and education, while absolute poverty decreased dramatically.

To give it a contemporary context, this and the stagnation of wealth equality indexes partly explain why the Iranian government remained perfectly stable during the Arab spring, despite the expectations of the American and European press, and why the inflammatory rhetoric and controversial policy of Tehran is generally endorsed by the majority of the Iranian society, with the exception of fiscal and financial initiatives.

[Vanoi]

When Saudi Arabia bombs Yemeni school buses with lots of children: "Meh. I'm sure they deserved that."
When Yemen fires back and damages an oil refinery without the cost of life: "OH HOW DARE THEY?!"

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/22/...ians-block-aid

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45639276

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-y...0Q41VZ20150730

Houthis attack and tortue civilians all the time. Their landmines have killed hundreds and block aid in Yemen.

Continue the evil Saudi narrative. In reality the Houthis and Saudis both killed thousands.

[Lusitanio]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/22/...ians-block-aid

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45639276

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-y...0Q41VZ20150730

Houthis attack and tortue civilians all the time. Their landmines have killed hundreds and block aid in Yemen.

Continue the evil Saudi narrative. In reality the Houthis and Saudis both killed thousands.

Surprising that you had to find those news from papers that support the war of agression against Yemen and even more surprising that you had to research deep to find them, one is even from 2015. Look, war is hell, everyone knows that for sure and no one is trully innocent, but the Saudis, armed with North American and European weapons, have killed hundreds if not thousands of innocents. Funny how in Syria the rebels were seen as the good guys but in Yemen the rebels are seen as the bad guys. It's just politics and strategic objetives, the rest doesn't matter. But the Saudis deserve everything thing they are getting and much more.

[tgoodenow]

I think both Saudi Arabia and Iran are scummy. The Houthi are no better as they call for death to my country. I don’t support war with Iran and I’m a trump supporter. If he invades Iran he will lose in 2020.
We sell Saudis billions of dollars in equipment to protect themselves, so they should do it themselves and they should call in their local allies to help them.

[Vanoi]

Surprising that you had to find those news from papers that support the war of agression against Yemen and even more surprising that you had to research deep to find them, one is even from 2015. Look, war is hell, everyone knows that for sure and no one is trully innocent, but the Saudis, armed with North American and European weapons, have killed hundreds if not thousands of innocents. Funny how in Syria the rebels were seen as the good guys but in Yemen the rebels are seen as the bad guys. It's just politics and strategic objetives, the rest doesn't matter. But the Saudis deserve everything thing they are getting and much more.

Did you read the sources? Two of them quote reports from the Human Rights Watch who criticize the Saudis as much as the Houthis.

The Houthis are responsible for many deaths as well as the Saudis. Difference is for some reason Houthi landmines killing and injuring hunfreds of people just doesn't seem to make the news.

When Hadi's government manages to kill civilians on the level Assad has managed i'll the Houthis the good guys.

[The spartan]

I don’t support war with Iran and I’m a trump supporter. If he invades Iran he will lose in 2020.

I think the Iranians realize this and know they can be bold with provocations. It's kinda hard for Trump to both look strong and be non-interventionist.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Um, what does that have to do with the fact that notion of warmongering globalist lunatics (both as neolib Dems and neocons in GOP) being "smarter" then Trump is laughable? Trump has been playing opposition against him like a fiddle.

If by “playing opposition like a fiddle,” you mean Trump has the luxury of saying “yeah I’m corrupt, what you gonna do about it?” to an opposition whose answer is “nothing of actual consequence,” then sure. Not sure what that has to do with your assertion that describing Trump as an idiot is necessarily predicated on ideology?

Lol dude. 1) You didn't do s. 2) One doesn't justify the other. Having freed Europe from Nazis (totally not because they declared war) doesn't justify supporting the genocidal maniacs of today.


When Saudi Arabia bombs Yemeni school buses with lots of children: "Meh. I'm sure they deserved that."
When Yemen fires back and damages an oil refinery without the cost of life: "OH HOW DARE THEY?!"

If facts haven’t weighed you down thus far, I don’t know why you’d resort to strawmen at this juncture. I addressed your points directly.

Cheers, Legio, happy to agree that we disagree. Just a couple of notes: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had not been in the throne for more than 50 years. He was only installed in 1941, following the Soviet-British invasion of Iran. Unless of course you're referring to the imperial institution or the dynasty, in general. As for the factors that led to the great Revolution of 1979, mainstream historiography nowadays concludes that opposition to secularism played only a relatively negligible role. It was never strong enough to motivate the people to go to the streets against a notoriously bloodthirsty regime and, in any case, it was never truly implemented, beyond a superficial level limited to the upper strata of the society (who were anyway ideologically close to the principles of secularism).


The main cause for the popular uprising was the sudden economic decline that succeeded a gradual growth, the social, professional and financial privileges his supporters enjoyed and the corruption of the courtand of the magnates surrounding them. The Shah's sloppy initiatives, like the luxurious celebrations in Persepolis, added fuel to the fire, by making a really bad contrast with the impoverished population of the countryside, who lacked even the most basic infrastructure, while the notorious brutality of his police force unnecessarily escalated the situation. From this perspective, the revolutionary authorities achievedmuch more than the supposedly pro-West emperor, in the sense of a slow democratisation, the formidable improvement in healthcare and education, while absolute poverty decreased dramatically.


To give it a contemporary context, this and the stagnation of wealth equality indexes partly explain why the Iranian government remained perfectly stable during the Arab spring, despite the expectations of the American and European press, and whythe inflammatory rhetoric and controversial policy of Tehran is generally endorsed by the majority of the Iranian society, with the exception of fiscal and financial initiatives.

I was referring to the dynasty, yes. The Iranian Islamic revival rooted in liberation theology which became the dominant force in the Revolution certainly has overtly economic, anti-western and anti-capitalist themes. Opposition to secularism and a re-commitment to Islamic law and governance is an explicit, core component, hence the rejection of Marxism or traditional socialism, secular democracy, and embrace of an Islamic Republic headed by the supreme religious leader and religious legal officials. The purge of secular and moderate Muslim political institutions and intelligentsia in Iran followed in the wake of the Revolution, not to mention the export of the “Global Islamic Revolution” ever since.

[Heathen Hammer]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/22/...ians-block-aid

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45639276

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-y...0Q41VZ20150730

Houthis attack and tortue civilians all the time. Their landmines have killed hundreds and block aid in Yemen.

Continue the evil Saudi narrative. In reality the Houthis and Saudis both killed thousands.

Objectively pone can point out that comparing collateral damage done (as even obviously pro-Saudi propaganda in BBC could not assert it) by rebels is not the same as Saudis deliberately targeting civilians and attempting to starve the population. Houthis are defending their country against foreign aggression. Such a war can't be fought with white gloves, but we can safely say that Houthis do have moral superiority in this one. Clearly attacking economic and military facilities is a legitimate form of warfare, and hopefully we will see more attacks on Saudi theocracy in future.

[Love Mountain]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...222531776.html

The Pentagon said on Friday that the United States will deploy additional troops and military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to beef up security, as President Donald Trump has at least for now decided against any immediate military attacks in response to those on the Saudi oil industry.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said this is the first step, and he is not ruling out additional moves down the road. He said it is a response to requests from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to help improve their air and missile defences.

Esper and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said details of the deployments will be determined over the coming days.

Saudi and US officials have said that evidence shows Iranian involvement in last weekend's attacks - an allegation Tehran denies.

Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been locked in a war with a Saudi-UAE-led coalition since 2015, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

On Friday, an official with the Houthi rebel movement in Yemen said it will stop aiming missile and drone attacks at Saudi Arabia, warning that a continuation of the war could lead to "dangerous developments".

This is concerning and I am against it.

[Prodromos]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...222531776.html

This is concerning and I am against it.

Weakness invites aggression. If you're looking to stave off war with Iran, strengthening their neighbors' defensive capabilities is the best way of doing it.

[conon394]

Weakness invites aggression. If you're looking to stave off war with Iran, strengthening their neighbors' defensive capabilities is the best way of doing it.

Hmm the question is the House of Saud anyone we should care about. Frankly since the House of Saud implemented/caused oil embargo lines I sat in back in the 70s I could really care less if they invite aggression from Iran or suffer the consequences. Fight your little regional proxy war and dick waving on your own I see not percentage for the US.

----

This is concerning and I am against it.

I would not be - mostly. Trump likes talk but clearly has no stones or Bolton would still behind a desk in the Admin. He is inviting Iran to keep lashing out and they may overestimate is spinelessness for a situation he created - but thinking he will keep flinching. Real war with Iran means a recession and well an new mid east war with no good end game... that means a easy dem win.

[Prodromos]

Hmm the question is the House of Saud anyone we should care about. Frankly since the House of Saud implemented/caused oil embargo lines I sat in back in the 70s I could really care less if they invite aggression from Iran or suffer the consequences. Fight your little regional proxy war and dick waving on your own I see not percentage for the US.

I can imagine no scenario in which an Iranian, Russian and/or Chinese takeover of the Middle East would be good for the US, or for the cause of liberal democracy generally.

[Love Mountain]

Weakness invites aggression. If you're looking to stave off war with Iran, strengthening their neighbors' defensive capabilities is the best way of doing it.

Saudi Arabia and Iran having a war would be disastrous for the region. On the other hand, I can't particularly care if Saudi Arabia starts suffering from lots of terrorism. That sounds like karma. I am against terrorism in principle, but it's not as if our foreign policy is. So, as far as anyone's concerned, Saudi Arabia is reaping what they sowed.

I would not be - mostly. Trump likes talk but clearly has no stones or Bolton would still behind a desk in the Admin. He is inviting Iran to keep lashing out and they may overestimate is spinelessness for a situation he created - but thinking he will keep flinching. Real war with Iran means a recession and well an new mid east war with no good end game... that means a easy dem win.

On the contrary, I think another fiasco in Saudi Arabia will have the war hawks and conservatives pushing for a hardline stance in the Middle East. Instead of rejecting it, I fear a Democrat like Biden will push for a middle ground. Moderate Dems don't have a backbone.

[Lord Thesaurian]

BEIRUT—Houthi militants in Yemen have warned foreign diplomats that Iran is preparing a follow-up strike to the missile and drone attack that crippled Saudi Arabia’s oil industrya week ago, people familiar with the matter said.

Leaders of the group said they were raising the alarm about the possible new attack after they were pressed by Iran to play a role in it, these people said.

It couldn’t be determined how serious the threat was and Houthi claims have long been met with skepticism by Western officials. But Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have both received the information, according to people briefed on the warnings.


Saudi Arabia has beefed up its security in response, according to people familiar with the moves. Saudi Arabian officials are concerned about an another attack on the oil industryor a strike on civilian airports, including the one in Riyadh, the capital.


Mohammed Abdul Salam, the Houthi spokesman, denied Saturday that the group had delivered any warning to foreign diplomats about potential Iranian attacks. A spokesman for Iran’s U.N. mission in New York didn’t respond Saturday to requests for comment.
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have accused the Houthi forces of falsely claiming to have carried out the Saudi attack to cover up the role Tehran allegedly played in orchestrating the sophisticated airstrike, an accusation that Iran and the Houthis have denied.


There are disagreements within the Houthi movement over how closely to align with Tehran, and the U.S., U.N. and Saudi Arabia have all sought to empower those Houthi leaders seeking to distance themselves from Iran, the people familiar with the matter said.
Some Houthi leaders see Iran as their only hope of winning the fight with Saudi Arabia. Others view the move to deepen ties with Tehran as a mistake.


If the warnings prove to be true, they could signal a break between Iran and at least some factions of the Yemeni rebels


The Houthis seized the Yemeni capital San’a in 2014 and now hold a large chunk of the country’s north along the Saudi border, fighting a civil war with Iranian backing against the Saudi-led coalition. The conflict has left nearly 100,000 dead, with airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi rocket attacks both claiming civilian lives.


In recent days, the people familiar with the matter said, Iran let Houthi fighters know that they wanted their support in carrying out more attacks across the region. The Houthis responded unexpectedly, by offering a unilateral cease-fire on Friday to Saudi Arabia.
The cease-fire offer raised hopes among Gulf leaders, American officials, and Western diplomats that it could drive a wedge between Tehran and its Yemeni allies.
Mohammed al-Bukhiaiti, a member of the Houthi political council, urged Saudi Arabia to join them in the cease-fire.


Yemen has nothing more to lose,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “Yemen and Saudi Arabia have common interests and that is why we hope Saudi leadership will respond to this initiative.”


Iran has dismissed the U.S. and Saudi accusations that it is behind the strike as propaganda meant to isolate Tehran as the Trump administration sanction’s the country’s economy.
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have yet to provide conclusive evidence of any Iranian role. European leaders have said they haven’t seen any clear links showing that Iran launched the attack. The U.S. and Saudi are scrutinizing pieces of the drones and missiles recovered from the attack and reviewing satellite information as they try to pinpoint who launched the airstrikes.


U.S. officials suspect that Iranian forces used a base in southwestern Iran to launch volleys of low-flying cruise missiles and advanced drones to attack Saudi Arabia.
On Saturday, Adel al Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s minister of state for foreign affairs, called the attacks “a criminal act conducted with Iranian weapons and so we hold Iran responsible for the attack that not only targeted the kingdom, but targeted the world as a whole.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yemeni-...on-11569105344

Looks like the Ayatollah may just be getting started.

[Love Mountain]

I don't have a WSJ subscription.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Edited to include the full article. I guess it must be free on mobile.

[Heathen Hammer]

I always like how claims in globalist propaganda are backed by "people familiar with the matter". Who are those people? Are they credible? How are they related to the matter? Is there a recording of them saying that?
WSJ and other mainstream American media have the journalistic ability of a middle-school newspaper.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I always like how claims in globalist propaganda are backed by "people familiar with the matter". Who are those people? Are they credible? How are they related to the matter? Is there a recording of them saying that?
WSJ and other mainstream American media have the journalistic ability of a middle-school newspaper.

1. What does the use of anonymous sources in journalism have to do with globalism or the propaganda hatched by this mysterious cabal you seem to know so much about?

2. Which media publications specifically qualify for your certification of journalistic “ability?”

[Heathen Hammer]

1. What does the use of anonymous sources in journalism have to do with globalism or the propaganda hatched by this mysterious cabal you seem to know so much about?

2. Which media publications specifically qualify for your certification of journalistic “ability?”

1. It is okay in general, but "this is the reason why we need to go to war on behalf of a violent theocratic dictatorship... from an anonymous source". Sorry outrageous claims require sufficient evidence.
2. The ones that don't make such claims with 0 evidence.