Saudi gives Israel clear skies to attack Iran

Ok, first - let's get this out of the way: what total hypocritical brown-nosing scum Saudi is.


Times Newspaper

The major reason for this is to play into the anti-Shi'i agenda which is part of the Saudi/Wahabi plan for domination of the ISlamic World. No surprise. Someone, somewhere is going to have to take Saudi down but that time is not yet.

Main point: I would say this means that an attack is imminent with certain kangaroo-caveats that are set up to make the sheep be able to argue 'We gave Iran every chance' but which in reality are impossible to fulfill Iraq-stylee and hence a fait accompli.

Personally my views is that it is - and always has been - irrelevant whether Iran is making nuclear weapons and thus this thread is not for a discussion of that (please don't go there). Rather the contention is that it has always been inevitable that Iran must be attacked and neutralized and the nuclear weapons issue is the peg to hang on it on.

So, given an attack on the alleged 'nuclear facilities' (ie Teheran a city of 8 million people) what is the likely Iranian reaction? Clearly the potential for wider conflict is immense.

The key I think here though is the Saudis - what most people do not realize (because the media will not tell them) is that Saudi is responsible (directly or indirectly) for the vast majority of Islamist activity over the last decades and this action will bring them further into the firing lines.

If you look at it objectively, with the exception of Hamas which can be regarded as a local grouping, Islamism in general does not in fact target Israel but targets other Islamic opponents and their Western allies. This I think is pragmatism and don't think it will change here unless Israel loses jets or personnel in the initial raids.

Reprisals wil be against Saudi and the US and essentially this initial action will start a war - thoughts?

I don't count the US sponsored assassination squads, fake terror groups targeting civilians, actual support of created terror groups and general black-ops no...I do mean a real war...sorry...should have made that clearer.

I think you're probably right but these Saudis are still scumbags.

I don't see how an alliance with them can work long-term for the US. Israel yes, as their ideologies are similar but the Saudi alliance has to turn round and bite them at some point no?

Maybe it already has but pragmatism dictates that the game must go on.

I think you're on to something....Israel only needed to go to Saudi if the US did not allow flights over Iraq so assuming this is the first option it looks like Obama may have vetoed that which would tie into what you say.

If that's the case then I suppose if Israel don't feel the US will do anything then they would but I've always thought they would do it unilaterally whatever anyway.

You know my thoughts on Bush but one thing I would say is this; I obviously did not agree with his actions but I think they were 'professional' in some way. I mean he made decisions, or his team did, and they carried them through - obviously making mistakes but that's not the point.

Obama I don't think is a President the US would want in the hot seat if a Middle East conflagration kicks off.

The image of the 'Statesman' is just that - an image and I don't think he has either of the two qualities that would be needed: ie diplomacy/peacemaker or strong leader. If it comes to a Kennedy/Kruschev moment then I don't think he has anywhere near what it takes and we should all probably be worried.

I guess I'm saying that in such a situation he will be exposed as lacking leadership qualities.

Hopefully it won't come to anything.