4 ms·

> - Iran does not recognize Israel. Neither does Saudi Arabia! Why does it even matter, since 32 countries do not recognize Israel; including huge US beneficia

> - Iran does not recognize Israel. Neither does Saudi Arabia! Why does it even matter, since 32 countries do not recognize Israel; including huge US beneficiaries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan? > From 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 ... ... and in turn Israelis killed 4907 Palestinians and wounded 8611? If the number of killed is a factor in determining one's "terroristness", then surely you can't claim that Israel is a victim here! Just last year, in Operation Protective Edge, 73 Israelis were killed and 664 wounded; whereas 2100 Palestinians were killed and 11000 wounded: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualtiestotal.html http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualti... > Iranian proxies killed an estimated 1,100 US troops in Iraq. ... and Saudi proxies killed nearly 4000 on 9/11 !

colordrops 12y ago
I can't help but think that many of the people posting on these boards are either shills or have psychological disorders, because they ignore completely obvious facts like the ones you point out and continue to hold onto their views. That type of willful blind spot is not tolerated with other subjects here on Hacker News.
- olympus 12y ago
  There are political differences to be expected, but let me try to explain why the USA is willing to rub elbows with the Saudis and not with Iran. My credentials are this: I spent 6 months working on strategy in the CENTCOM AOR bitching about every single country in the Persian/Arabian Gulf every single day. The choice is one of picking the lesser of two evils. The USA has a great interest in keeping and increasing its geopolitical influence in the Middle East (Israel is not included in this region even though we have to plan for their actions). The two main regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Iran. We used to be friendly with both countries back in the 1970s but Iran had a revolution and the Ayatollah didn't want anything to do with us, and it remains that way today. Although the current President of Iran (Rouhani) has mentioned that he would like to improve relations with the USA, he is not the boss regardless of how many people voted for him; the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader and he still openly calls for the death of Israel and the USA. So we obviously can't be friends with Iran. That leaves us with Saudi Arabia, and while they also sponsor terrorism, they are all we have left. We overlook their actions, and in exchange we are allowed to keep a significant military force there, which props up their government and provides them with a pretty big stick when negotiating with the smaller countries in the region (the only other stick they really have is their gargantuan oil production). So our PATRIOT batteries protect the family of Saud from Iran, and we get to have a little say in their goings on. It's as simple as that. Just about everybody we deal with is a piece of scum that would like to see the USA brought down a peg, but Saudi Arabia doesn't do it openly and they depend on our money and protection, so we get along a little better than them. Iran openly calls for our destruction. The last several US presidents, both Republican and Democrat have decided that it's better for us to support Saudi Arabia than not have any influence in the Middle East at all. The only other option is to withdraw our forces (without Saudi Arabia's cooperation we would probably lose our basing agreements with all the other countries in the region) and have no say whatsoever and watch as the Middle East goes in a direction that isn't beneficial to the USA in the slightest. --And to get back to the topic of the parent post, yeah, this is exactly what the NSA is supposed to do. It is supposed to do two things: Secure the information of the USA and its citizens, and to undermine the security of everything else. A lot of US citizens were upset when they found out that the NSA vacuum had gotten their information as well, and rightfully so. But the NSA is still primarily focused on targeting external entities, and although those entities are well within their rights to complain, don't expect the NSA to stop just because someone didn't like it. Regardless of what a federal judge says about collecting on US citizens, no judge will EVER tell the NSA to stop its clandestine activities on foreign networks.
  - colordrops 12y ago
    I appreciate your informed and reasonable response, but you didn't really address the two main points of the grandparent poster. 1. Iran isn't really different in stance from several other countries. You say that Iran calls for the death of Israel and America, but this isn't really true. The one quote from Ahmadinejad that gets thrown around turned out to be a mistranslation. And even if Iran's leadership did say such things, they are not even close to being alone in such heavy handed rhetoric. And anyway words shouldn't be enough to start trillion dollar wars. Otherwise Iran should have the right to attack the US for McCain and other American politicians' equivalently inflammatory speech. 2. Israel is as complicit in terror as other powers in the middle east, if not more so, but they never called out. The reasons are usually vague or fallacious, such as them being "friends" or "like us" or the only democracy in the middle east.
    - olympus 12y ago
      The question I was answering above was "why Saudi Arabia and not Iran? Aren't they both bad?" Regarding your other points, I'll answer them below (and I admit my attitude upfront on the first one, you just posted that you are frustrated with people with a willful blind spot and then you give me #1): 1. Iran's calling for the death of Israel and the USA is just a single missed translation? Give me a break. A news article from five days ago: "As usual, Iranians chanted "Death to America" and also denounced Israel." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/11/385396449/on-.. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/11/385396449/on-.... It's a slogan over there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America. And they aren't alone in their rhetoric. North Korea says it too. And guess what? We've isolated them as much as we can as well. The countries that are willing to openly say "Death to America" are ones that haven't matured enough on the world stage to realize that you should say one thing and do another. The rhetoric alone isn't enough to start a war, but their actions aren't that innocent. Iran's first "blue water navy" excursion was planned to sail all the way to the coast of the USA and enter our territorial waters, just to say that they could (but their ship didn't make it). They built a mock US aircraft carrier and practiced shooting anti-ship missiles at it. They aren't just talking big, they are actively posturing as the opposition to the US influence in the region. 2. Yeah, Israel does some stuff. The Jews have killed a lot of people (even going back to biblical times). They usually get a pass because they are seen as the "small fry" backed into a corner by all the Muslim countries surrounding them. It isn't true, but that is the story that is spun. Similar to how we treat the Saudis, we let Israel get away with a lot of things that we should probably put a stop to--seriously, pretty much anybody with sense can see that compromise is the best way to solve the Israel/Palestine issue, but when two peoples hate each other that much, sometimes it's easier to watch them punch it out. If you try to break up a fight, you risk getting punched yourself. And besides, we don't get along with the Israelis as much as most people think. Seriously, we share more intel with New Zealand than we do with Israel.
seesomesense 12y ago
and Americans and their proxies killed 206,000 in Iraq. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ We all have blood and viscera and fragments of bone on our hands.
somebehemoth 12y ago
None of what you say debunks my thesis: Iran is implicated in modern terrorist activity. This was in reply to the person who said Iran has not been implicated. I linked to a reputable source with citations. I am baffled by the down votes. Are we disagreeing with the source material I referenced? How about a response that repudiates my claims instead of redirecting the conversation to something completely unrelated to my comment (Saudis, Israelis, etc). To be blunt: the world has many bad actors (including the US), but it is absurd to say Iran is not at least "implicated" (which is different from proven!) in terrorist activity given the facts I referenced.
- discardorama 12y ago
  > the world has many bad actors (including the US), So what's the problem? You're using "implicated" as if it's a bad thing; by your own admission, even the US is "implicated" in such activities. The point was: even using your metrics, Saudi Arabia is a worse actor than Iran is.
  - somebehemoth 12y ago
    My comment was in reply to the parent: "America is fine with propping up that regime, so why is Iran an issue, when from everything that I've read and experienced (12 years in the Middle East) there have been no implications of Iran in modern terrorist activities?" My comment explains why Iran is an issue (from the U.S. perspective) due to being implicated in decades of terrorism. That is the only point I wanted to refute because it is silly to claim Iran is beyond reproach when it comes to terrorism given the facts I referenced. Regarding "implicated" being a bad thing: it is. In english it is usually used in reference to someone committing a crime or being involved in some other nefarious activity. Your opinion on who is "worse" is not really something I am interested in because all terrorism is awful regardless of the perpetrator.

colordrops 12y ago

I can't help but think that many of the people posting on these boards are either shills or have psychological disorders, because they ignore completely obvious facts like the ones you point out and continue to hold onto their views. That type of willful blind spot is not tolerated with other subjects here on Hacker News.

olympus 12y ago
There are political differences to be expected, but let me try to explain why the USA is willing to rub elbows with the Saudis and not with Iran. My credentials are this: I spent 6 months working on strategy in the CENTCOM AOR bitching about every single country in the Persian/Arabian Gulf every single day. The choice is one of picking the lesser of two evils. The USA has a great interest in keeping and increasing its geopolitical influence in the Middle East (Israel is not included in this region even though we have to plan for their actions). The two main regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Iran. We used to be friendly with both countries back in the 1970s but Iran had a revolution and the Ayatollah didn't want anything to do with us, and it remains that way today. Although the current President of Iran (Rouhani) has mentioned that he would like to improve relations with the USA, he is not the boss regardless of how many people voted for him; the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader and he still openly calls for the death of Israel and the USA. So we obviously can't be friends with Iran. That leaves us with Saudi Arabia, and while they also sponsor terrorism, they are all we have left. We overlook their actions, and in exchange we are allowed to keep a significant military force there, which props up their government and provides them with a pretty big stick when negotiating with the smaller countries in the region (the only other stick they really have is their gargantuan oil production). So our PATRIOT batteries protect the family of Saud from Iran, and we get to have a little say in their goings on. It's as simple as that. Just about everybody we deal with is a piece of scum that would like to see the USA brought down a peg, but Saudi Arabia doesn't do it openly and they depend on our money and protection, so we get along a little better than them. Iran openly calls for our destruction. The last several US presidents, both Republican and Democrat have decided that it's better for us to support Saudi Arabia than not have any influence in the Middle East at all. The only other option is to withdraw our forces (without Saudi Arabia's cooperation we would probably lose our basing agreements with all the other countries in the region) and have no say whatsoever and watch as the Middle East goes in a direction that isn't beneficial to the USA in the slightest. --And to get back to the topic of the parent post, yeah, this is exactly what the NSA is supposed to do. It is supposed to do two things: Secure the information of the USA and its citizens, and to undermine the security of everything else. A lot of US citizens were upset when they found out that the NSA vacuum had gotten their information as well, and rightfully so. But the NSA is still primarily focused on targeting external entities, and although those entities are well within their rights to complain, don't expect the NSA to stop just because someone didn't like it. Regardless of what a federal judge says about collecting on US citizens, no judge will EVER tell the NSA to stop its clandestine activities on foreign networks.
- colordrops 12y ago
  I appreciate your informed and reasonable response, but you didn't really address the two main points of the grandparent poster. 1. Iran isn't really different in stance from several other countries. You say that Iran calls for the death of Israel and America, but this isn't really true. The one quote from Ahmadinejad that gets thrown around turned out to be a mistranslation. And even if Iran's leadership did say such things, they are not even close to being alone in such heavy handed rhetoric. And anyway words shouldn't be enough to start trillion dollar wars. Otherwise Iran should have the right to attack the US for McCain and other American politicians' equivalently inflammatory speech. 2. Israel is as complicit in terror as other powers in the middle east, if not more so, but they never called out. The reasons are usually vague or fallacious, such as them being "friends" or "like us" or the only democracy in the middle east.
  - olympus 12y ago
    The question I was answering above was "why Saudi Arabia and not Iran? Aren't they both bad?" Regarding your other points, I'll answer them below (and I admit my attitude upfront on the first one, you just posted that you are frustrated with people with a willful blind spot and then you give me #1): 1. Iran's calling for the death of Israel and the USA is just a single missed translation? Give me a break. A news article from five days ago: "As usual, Iranians chanted "Death to America" and also denounced Israel." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/11/385396449/on-.. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/11/385396449/on-.... It's a slogan over there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America. And they aren't alone in their rhetoric. North Korea says it too. And guess what? We've isolated them as much as we can as well. The countries that are willing to openly say "Death to America" are ones that haven't matured enough on the world stage to realize that you should say one thing and do another. The rhetoric alone isn't enough to start a war, but their actions aren't that innocent. Iran's first "blue water navy" excursion was planned to sail all the way to the coast of the USA and enter our territorial waters, just to say that they could (but their ship didn't make it). They built a mock US aircraft carrier and practiced shooting anti-ship missiles at it. They aren't just talking big, they are actively posturing as the opposition to the US influence in the region. 2. Yeah, Israel does some stuff. The Jews have killed a lot of people (even going back to biblical times). They usually get a pass because they are seen as the "small fry" backed into a corner by all the Muslim countries surrounding them. It isn't true, but that is the story that is spun. Similar to how we treat the Saudis, we let Israel get away with a lot of things that we should probably put a stop to--seriously, pretty much anybody with sense can see that compromise is the best way to solve the Israel/Palestine issue, but when two peoples hate each other that much, sometimes it's easier to watch them punch it out. If you try to break up a fight, you risk getting punched yourself. And besides, we don't get along with the Israelis as much as most people think. Seriously, we share more intel with New Zealand than we do with Israel.

seesomesense 12y ago

and Americans and their proxies killed 206,000 in Iraq. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ We all have blood and viscera and fragments of bone on our hands.

somebehemoth 12y ago

None of what you say debunks my thesis: Iran is implicated in modern terrorist activity. This was in reply to the person who said Iran has not been implicated. I linked to a reputable source with citations. I am baffled by the down votes. Are we disagreeing with the source material I referenced? How about a response that repudiates my claims instead of redirecting the conversation to something completely unrelated to my comment (Saudis, Israelis, etc). To be blunt: the world has many bad actors (including the US), but it is absurd to say Iran is not at least "implicated" (which is different from proven!) in terrorist activity given the facts I referenced.

discardorama 12y ago
> the world has many bad actors (including the US), So what's the problem? You're using "implicated" as if it's a bad thing; by your own admission, even the US is "implicated" in such activities. The point was: even using your metrics, Saudi Arabia is a worse actor than Iran is.
- somebehemoth 12y ago
  My comment was in reply to the parent: "America is fine with propping up that regime, so why is Iran an issue, when from everything that I've read and experienced (12 years in the Middle East) there have been no implications of Iran in modern terrorist activities?" My comment explains why Iran is an issue (from the U.S. perspective) due to being implicated in decades of terrorism. That is the only point I wanted to refute because it is silly to claim Iran is beyond reproach when it comes to terrorism given the facts I referenced. Regarding "implicated" being a bad thing: it is. In english it is usually used in reference to someone committing a crime or being involved in some other nefarious activity. Your opinion on who is "worse" is not really something I am interested in because all terrorism is awful regardless of the perpetrator.