Saudi Arabia and Qatar Ratcheting Up Sectarian and Ethnic Tensions In Iraq

[al-Hasani]

None of the gulf states want Iraq to become a regional power. They see a Shia majority government in Iraq as an extension for Iran in the region. *That is the reality that some members here have failed to read out of the article. *Other reasons include the economic potential for iraq which would compete with the gulf states.

Iran has supported terrorist organizations in Iraq from 2004-2008. They have stopped ever since the crackdown on Shia militias by the government. But * KSA and Qatar continue to support terrorist groups till this day. The terrorists might not be directly supported by the governments, but funding for opposition groups in Iraq is eventually funneled to "Sunni" extremist groups who are involved in terrorism. *Iran's support for the terrorists groups was to counter Gulf- supported groups which included former Baathists and the new Wahabi ideology which spread in Iraq after the invasion, with the flood of foreign fighters, and against US and British forces. *Not to point out that 95% of all terrorist attacks since 2008 have been committed by "Sunni" groups.

The reasons for supporting terrorism in Iraq for the gulf states is the same reason for supporting terrorism in Syria. *They fear a a strong alliance which could counter their influence in the future. *

Another reason is the expansion of the Shia ideology. *Tens of thousands of converts to shiaism have alarmed some Sunni states, they fear that once Shias become a significant minority, they will eventually act as proxies for Iran. That is the main reason for the growing anti-Shia media over the past 9 years. *Millions of dollars have been spent for new channels and programs to control the spread of the Shia belief, but they still cannot control it.

Qatari and Saudi officials have been meetings with Iraqi opposition members who are attempting to conspire against the government. *When Tariq Al Hashimi travelled to Qatar, he was greeted as an official although he is wanted for involvements in terrorist crimes in Iraq.*

Truth is as Doritos11 pointed out. Iraqis want to distant themselves from both the gulf states and Iran, but the continuous hostile acts are forcing Iraq to take sides. *The entire "Maliki" obsession has become a mere reason for hostility against Iraq, the truth is the "sunni" states as you call them are against Shia rule in Iraq. No matter who is in power, as long as he is Shia, these states will continue their hostility. most of your questions are answered in the article, did you even bother thread it? **

The "Sunni states" want to use Iraq as a tool to counter Iran. We Iraqis don't want to be involved in you obsession with Iran. We have already spend 8 years and over 3 million killed and injured countering Iranian influence. *If you have a problem with them, take you army and go to war with Iran, no one is stopping you, just leave Iraq out of it.*

Wrong. KSA/GCC/Sunni Arab world/Sunni world has no intention of a direct military conflict with Iran nor Iran with the other part. Simply because it would be a disaster for both parties and just a repeat of the Iraq-Iran war. Nobody needs ANOTHER major conflict in the Middle East nor will the world powers allow that to happen when they are largely dependent on the oil and gas from the GCC and thus cherish the stability of the region.

The days of Saddam have ended. Khomeini is dead as well. Both those individuals (head of states) are the only rulers since WW2 that have publicly talked about the conquest of country/land x or y in our region.

Well, how is that different from the current Maliki lead government in Iraq fearing a Sunni dominated Syria and thus supporting Iran? Of course Turkey, GCC and Sunnis in general will be against Iran in this current climate. Just like you and other Shias are against Sunnis and Sunni states for the exact same reasons.

Individual support is not the same as state-spnsored support. With you kind of admit after bombastically, like 1-2 other users before you in this thread, stated that it was state-sponsoring, just to partly admit that this assumption is wrong, in connection with Saudi and Qatari state involvement.

Anyway like all individuals in country x or y can be blamed on what an single or couple individuals due on their own. Is that not what you Iraqis cry about when Kuwaitis are anti-iraqis do to the actions of Saddam? Then you are also quickly to point out that not all Iraqis are Ba'athist or support the invasion/claim of Kuwait.

Aside from that where is the criticism of the Iranian mercenaries, or the Libyan ones who were the most numerous? Jihadists from the whole world went to Iraq but only the Saudis get the blame. And there was/is not even one prolific Saudi terrorist in Iraq. All of them were either Jordanian (Zarqawi), Egyptian (Al-Masri) or Libyan. The Shia militias who drafted outsiders were dominated by Iranians - in terms of leadership.

To even suggest that the GOVERNMENT of KSA supported Al-Qaeda in Iraq during the American occupation is the worst nonsense I have ever heard. You do realize that USA are allies with KSA right? Do you think USA, the most powerful country and the country that suffered 9/11 and are under constant threat, would allow the Saudi government to sponsor the same Al-Qaeda elements who killed most American soldiers during the invasion? Nah, I don't think so. Not to mention, as mentioned by me and other users, that Al-Qaedas primarily goal is to topple the Saudi regime and that KSA itself have experienced the 3 most terrorist attacks perpetrated by Al-Qaeda in the entire Arab world after Iraq and Yemen. Unlike Qatar, UAE and other Gulf States which never experienced anything.
Not to say that KSA effectively defeated Al-Qaeda inside KSA and what is left is only sleeper cells. The majority have escaped to Yemen, which is due to the instability of that country, and the KSA government and Yemeni are both working and fighting against Al-Qaeda. On the other hand the Iranian regime have hosted Al-Qaeda members and family members of Osama bin Laden who escaped from Afghanistan to Iran during the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Nonsense you say? Then watch this clip and hear it from the mouth of the Mullah, although the one talking seems like a friendly and reformist Mullah.

Iran helped USA to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - YouTube

Why don't you address the fact that Iraqis themselves always have been a violent bunch throughout modern history? How many internal conflicts have you guys experienced? Be it Sunni vs Shia or Kurd vs Arab or something else? Your own Shia leaders killed each other for Gods sake all for the sake of power. 99 percent of all the attacks, whether Sunni or Shia are also done by Iraqis themselves. Stop blaming your neighbors constantly. It's not like Iraq was a saint before 2003, was it? Remember the attack on innocent Kurds, Kuwait and the failed attack on one Saudi city? Many Iraqis to this day still brag about this.

Or what about all the thousand Iraqis in nearby Syria. Iraq is the only country in the world where you have extremists fighting for both sides. The Shias fight for the Child-Murderer and his gangs and Shia militias while the Sunnis fight for FSA and Al-Nusra. The whole Al-Nusra leadership is Iraqi and they are the same people as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Most of the support to the rebels enters from Iraq or Turkey and to a lesser extent Jordan. In fact elements of the Iraqi regime already supported the Houthis.

Oh, just like officials from Iran have been meeting with the Shia leaders? Or what about Iraqi Shia terrorist being protected by Iran? To my knowledge no individuals are being protected in KSA with any ties to Iraq. The Saudi-Iraqi border is closed and have been that since 2003. Before as well if I remember correctly.

The whole Maliki crew and his political parties lived in Iran and received help from the Iranian regime. Al-Maliki himself lived in Iran while he was in exile.

Also it's a myth that KSA or the Gulf were great supporters of Saddam. The same Saddam who attacked them.... Or dreamt about conquering the Eastern parts of KSA, Kuwait, Khuzestan and other areas. Or dreamt about being the uncrowned Arab leader.

GCC has no fear of anyone. GCC will continue to be the most developed and rich area in the Middle East. KSA has the biggest, most stable and fastest growing economy in the entire Middle East and Muslim world. KSA's population is only going to grow. In fact it is the population wit the highest growth together with Yemen in the Arab world and Egypt. GCC is only going to expand. Yemen will soon join in either 2017 or 2018. Till that time the Yemeni population will be 40 million. Jordan is going to join a few years as well. Already applied. Syria will probably join when they will be ruled by the Sunni majority.

Also you "forgot" to tell the viewers here that UAE, a fellow GCC member state and closest ally to KSA and Qatar, have invested greatly in Iraq. In fact only Turkey and Iran have invested more. That's not the action of a region (GCC) which is afraid of anything.

Also Iraq as we know it might change very quickly. The most developed and stable region of Iraq, Kurdistan, is already autonomous and acts like it was a sovereign country. The political situation of Iraq is also uncertain. It's not like Iraq will suddenly be the new Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Doha, Jeddah, Riyadh etc. It will take time. And it is in the best interest of Iraq to have strong ties with its Arab Sunni neighbors. Iraq needs the GCC more than the GCC needs Iraq.

I have nothing against a healthy relationship with Iraq regardless of the government. The only worry of many Sunni Arabs and Sunnis in the region overall is that Iraq will become TOO close with Iran. And who can blame them? Iran is about to develop nuclear weapons and have made indirect threats to the Sunni Arab states. Every nation would be cautious.

We know the hate that Iraqi Shias and Shias in general have for Sunni Arabs and Sunnis. There are some types that hate the other counterpart as much. It's not good for the region and does not benefit anyone.

I have to say and admit that if KSA and the GCC together with Turkey got their act together and settled the disagreements with Iran and vice versa then the region would become much better. But it's easier said than done. There is decade old mistrust. The regular Shia Iraqi might not understand this since he sees Iran as an ally and bulwark against Sunnis. But under Khomeini and still today many Iranian Mullahs openly state their desire to conquer Makkah and Madinah. Those are state-representatives and not some independent clerics like in KSA who often make absurd claims as well. But at the end of the day they have no influence. King Abdullah never does that. On the other hand the Iranian Mullahs are those who govern, rule and control the country.

 

[Hussein]

Come on Hussein, are you saying all of Iran's 'activities' are down to one elderly man? such an infrastructure for certain 'acts' is not orchestrated by one man. He's a figurehead for it.

What i am saying is not that someone alone is doing everything but he is the master of most of what is happening.
President didn't have any control on sepah, parliament as well, no other authority than Khamenei does.
Khamenei is controlling the sepah so much that he can kick its people as he wants from day to day.
Even in normal army there are among officers some of sepah to check their ideas (and the advanced tech weapons are in hands of sepah not the normal army).
What i am saying this is a system with a strong leader . If you prefer : a dictator.
Yes a man can control a lot in a country and i am surprised you are surprised about it. It is not like there are so many exemples in the world like this.

I can give you some exemples and points, in a simple way because it is complex:
- there is a pressure group in Iran. These guys go to the reformist places to kick themn they go kick the guy who shacked the hand to an Israeli (Khatami for exemple) or who shaked hand with a woman. These guys beat the people who start criticizing the leader. This is a group which is there to scare people.
- inside the parliament there is a small conservative group which always remind (they are the pro Khamenei) that you should say bad about USA. It is not even possible for deputies to say what they want. No way to say it would smart to have normalized diplomacy.
and so and so.

You know that in Iran criticizing Khamenei means insulting Islam and if they want you have death penalty for this. And many young people during the green waves were executed for this.

You see how you're upset over people's perceptions of Iran and then al-Hasani posts about his frustration about people's perception of Saudi. Also I have it from both sides about Israel.

I am not upset towards people especially. About Israel i have many friends there i communicate by internet with them, many lived in Iran before and many were in France and sometimes come in France. I like them and their education.

I am not upset about perception. It is just something i can see and that's why i spend some time to give some information to French and US journalists that i know. The good point of western newspapers is the good journalists didn't have ideology; they try to understand things. I am happy to say the life in Iran and show that people are very different than extremists .
Sorry about my English level anyway. I should improve it but in France it becomes worst and worst


I agree with al Hasani that USA were acting very wrongly in 53. Obama even said sorry about it.
They are not the only responsibles for this and of course the main responsible is of course shah itself.

relations with USA should be normalized and personnaly i would think we have a lot to share with Americans .

my father was killed by Iraqis . Should i blame all Iraqis for that ? Should all these Iranians who lost their dear family blame Iraqis ? We don't . So if we can love the Iraqis we can do for saudis and Americans . But for that it means that right people should lead the country. People who stop threatening. And for this i will not blame Al Hasani to blame Iranian regime to act wrongly.
You know yourself about Israel... why the hell our country needs to say "we want to finish the history of this country"? non sense. it doesn't help , it makes the situation of Palestine worst , giving a bad picture and this is stupid.

 

[ResurgentIran]

Things flare up (typically) with this whole Sunni-Shia squabble. Washington is proud. Anyway Im gonna stay out of it.
The good news is that most Iraqis (certainly the two on this forum) are sensible enough not to get into this Sectarian divide and let it tear their country. It almost did, but its obvious they've had enough of such things. They dont want to be tools or playground for any country/proxy such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both have had their share of activity in Iraq, let's be honest.
Bottom line, Iraq just wanna be left alone.

 

[mohsen]

Saudi and rest of dictatorships in the region are at the verge of collapse, no matter how much they struggle, Islamic uprising will eventually drown them in itself. their stolen money or U.S support wont save them.

 

[al-Hasani]

Also I never understood the hate some Iranians have to Saudis. Since when have Saudis ever done anything bad to Iran? Attacked it? Has any Saudi leader, like Khomeini did, ever talked about conquering Tehran or Qom? Is is because the Iranians still hate Arabs and hold grudges against us? Or it is the Arab conquest of Persia where the vast majority of the fighting force was made up by Hejazis and other Arabs?

Has Saudi Arabia ever financed Iranian Kurds, Azeris, Baloch, Arabs or Turkmens or their movements against the Iranian regime? Have Saudi Arabia ever claimed Iranian land as Iran once apparently did (ResurgentIran told me yesterday) with Bahrain? If they claim Bahrain they also claim the Eastern Province in KSA because Greater Bahrain and the Eastern Province is one and the same more or less.

If anything you should hate the Iraqis who killed 1-2 million of your people and who supported the Baloch resistance and others.

Ironically all those self-proclaimed Sadah (Sayyids in plural in Arabic) who rule Iran today, if genuine, are from Hejaz originally.

Yes, there was this incident in 1987 with the pilgrims but that was a regular fight. 300 Iranian pilgrims died but so died 100 Saudi policemen and other innocent people. Also some non-Saudis/non-Iranians died.

Oh, yes there was the financial support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. But so did all of the Arab world, Pakistan, the West and others. If KSA and the GCC knew that the same Saddam would later attack them they would not have supported him. And at the end of the day it were the Iraqis who attacked, invaded and killed the Iranians not Saudis, Yemenis, Moroccans or others Arabs. Also it was just after the 1979 coup in Iran and where threats were made left and right and it caused great distress in neighboring countries. Understandable since it was also during the cold war.

Other than religious divides (Sunni vs Shia) and the historical Arab-Persian animosity/rivalry I struggle to see the reasons. But that rivalry ended effectively after the Arab conquest of Persia. After that Arabs and Persians worked closely during the Islamic Golden Age and elsewhere.

To think that "Arabs" rule Iran today is a very strange thought given the actions. Or maybe it makes sense due to the Arab rivalry/fight between each other.

 

[Controlled Pair]

What i am saying is not that someone alone is doing everything but he is the master of most of what is happening.
President didn't have any control on sepah, parliament as well, no other authority than Khamenei does.
Khamenei is controlling the sepah so much that he can kick its people as he wants from day to day.
Even in normal army there are among officers some of sepah to check their ideas (and the advanced tech weapons are in hands of sepah not the normal army).
What i am saying this is a system with a strong leader . If you prefer : a dictator.
Yes a man can control a lot in a country and i am surprised you are surprised about it. It is not like there are so many exemples in the world like this.

I can give you some exemples and points, in a simple way because it is complex:
- there is a pressure group in Iran. These guys go to the reformist places to kick themn they go kick the guy who shacked the hand to an Israeli (Khatami for exemple) or who shaked hand with a woman. These guys beat the people who start criticizing the leader. This is a group which is there to scare people.
- inside the parliament there is a small conservative group which always remind (they are the pro Khamenei) that you should say bad about USA. It is not even possible for deputies to say what they want. No way to say it would smart to have normalized diplomacy.
and so and so.

You know that in Iran criticizing Khamenei means insulting Islam and if they want you have death penalty for this. And many young people during the green waves were executed for this.


I am not upset towards people especially. About Israel i have many friends there i communicate by internet with them, many lived in Iran before and many were in France and sometimes come in France. I like them and their education.

I am not upset about perception. It is just something i can see and that's why i spend some time to give some information to French and US journalists that i know. The good point of western newspapers is the good journalists didn't have ideology; they try to understand things. I am happy to say the life in Iran and show that people are very different than extremists .
Sorry about my English level anyway. I should improve it but in France it becomes worst and worst


I agree with al Hasani that USA were acting very wrongly in 53. Obama even said sorry about it.
They are not the only responsibles for this and of course the main responsible is of course shah itself.

relations with USA should be normalized and personnaly i would think we have a lot to share with Americans .

my father was killed by Iraqis . Should i blame all Iraqis for that ? Should all these Iranians who lost their dear family blame Iraqis ? We don't . So if we can love the Iraqis we can do for saudis and Americans . But for that it means that right people should lead the country. People who stop threatening. And for this i will not blame Al Hasani to blame Iranian regime to act wrongly.
You know yourself about Israel... why the hell our country needs to say "we want to finish the history of this country"? non sense. it doesn't help , it makes the situation of Palestine worst , giving a bad picture and this is stupid.

It's interesting. How on earth are Iranians going to get rid of this regime?. I mean, as terrible as the Iraq war was - Saddam would have been in power for another 20 years, then his psychopath sons and then their sons. It would have been decades of tyranny.

We see it in Syria, father handing over to son.

The Syrian protests started off peacefully - look what it's all become. Syria is blood soaked. Iranians have even less of a chance to overthrow Iranian regime. Iran is too strong. Mind you, I guess people said that about the Soviets.

From an Israeli perspective and being completely selfish - I wonder if the Sunni/Shia divide is a good thing. I saw a video recently of normal Israelis on the street talking about Syria and one of them said "it's unfortunate, but maybe they do need a dictator". I always viewed that as being a bit racist - but then again you get Arabs like al-Hasani who say they don't want democracy. Which is fair enough.

I look at Syria and I think....how can Israel deal with people like this? I know that some in the region view Israel's military actions as aggressive and excessive - but that's a world away from the videos I've seen of Syrians cutting ears off the dead, setting fire to bodies, mutilating, beheading etc. I don't understand the mentality.

So question is, can Iranians do anything to change the course of their country which is increasing in isolation - and do they want to?

I have sometimes said that there can't be any business done with Palestinians. That they're too violent etc. Having looked at Syria though, I'm wondering whether the Palestinians in the WB are actually closer to us than anyone else in the region.

In general, the Israeli public speak most highly of two groups in the middle east - Turks and Iranians. So despite the war-like state between Israel and Iran - the hope for future peace is still there.

Peace between Israel & Pals
Peace between Sunni & Shia.

I think the first one is more likely than the latter.

 

[al-Hasani]

It's interesting. How on earth are Iranians going to get rid of this regime?. I mean, as terrible as the Iraq war was - Saddam would have been in power for another 20 years, then his psychopath sons and then their sons. It would have been decades of tyranny.

We see it in Syria, father handing over to son.

The Syrian protests started off peacefully - look what it's all become. Syria is blood soaked. Iranians have even less of a chance to overthrow Iranian regime. Iran is too strong. Mind you, I guess people said that about the Soviets.

From an Israeli perspective and being completely selfish - I wonder if the Sunni/Shia divide is a good thing. I saw a video recently of normal Israelis on the street talking about Syria and one of them said "it's unfortunate, but maybe they do need a dictator". I always viewed that as being a bit racist - but then again you get Arabs like al-Hasani who say they don't want democracy. Which is fair enough.

I look at Syria and I think....how can Israel deal with people like this? I know that some in the region view Israel's military actions as aggressive and excessive - but that's a world away from the videos I've seen of Syrians cutting ears off the dead, setting fire to bodies, mutilating, beheading etc. I don't understand the mentality.

So question is, can Iranians do anything to change the course of their country which is increasing in isolation - and do they want to?

I have sometimes said that there can't be any business done with Palestinians. That they're too violent etc. Having looked at Syria though, I'm wondering whether the Palestinians in the WB are actually closer to us than anyone else in the region.

In general, the Israeli public speak most highly of two groups in the middle east - Turks and Iranians. So despite the war-like state between Israel and Iran - the hope for future peace is still there.

Peace between Israel & Pals
Peace between Sunni & Shia.

I think the first one is more likely than the latter.

Little correction. I am not against democracy. I am against the forced Western styled democracy that you have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thing is those countries are not ready for democracy and it shows. Democracy is a bigger hindrance for any development in those countries because everyone now want a bit of the cake. The Middle East, is a region where you need strong rulers who can make unpopular decisions.

Democracy cannot succeed or be imported to a population that not even knows what it is in reality and how it functions. If KSA was located in Europe I would want democracy.

But how can I say that I want democracy when I know that it will fail in Saudi Arabia in the year 2013 as in every country in the Middle East? People need to be exposed to a real democracy before that even succeeds.

And KSA is different than any other country. You know, the land of the Two Holy Mosques. It's not as easy as you think. It is much easier for Iran to have real democracy even thought they never had democracy as well in their history.

It took Europe 100's of years to get democracy after genocides, massacres, the two most bloody wars in world history (WW1 and WW2) and then you Westerners think that democracy will come overnight to a region that never had it and maybe don't want the kind of democracy that is found in the West.

French democracy is not the same as Israeli democracy. Brazilian democracy is not the same as Indian democracy. Do you get what I am saying?

You make me sound like I am some kind of cavemen with all due respect. That's what most people thing when somebody, in the West or somewhere else, says that Western styled democracy is not the best right now or that it need modifications or something alike.

Also KSA is a very conservative society already and by nature due to the importance of Islam and other historical reasons that do not fit into this thread.

Watch this video and you will understand what I mean (talk about Western styled democracy in the Middle East).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F5KbXLxoquM

 

[mohsen]

hating dictators is natural for every human being specially in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar which are supporters of terrorism and creating bloodshed in the region.

 

[Harmonia Dragon]

best choice for iraq is modern islamic federal system like malaysia..............
no sunni no shia.....just one islam...
peace

 

[mohsen]

best choice for iraq is modern islamic federal system like malaysia..............
no sunni no shia.....just one islam...
peace

problem in Iraq isn't shiah or sunni, It's U.S ,Israel and their poppets (GCC dictators) who are supporting terrorism, Malaysia is lucky that doesn't have oil ( so it's not one of U.S interests) and it's not neighborhood of this GCC countries, else they would create another Iraq in it.
killing innocent people is forbidden in both shiah and sunni, but it has become legit in wahhabi, salfi and takfiri, and amazingly these religious are under full support of U.S.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Zyad Alisa is an Iranian puppet ,let just keep that in mind. The groundless accusations, bias, and inaccuracy have always been ever-lasting challenges for every columnist. Mr. Zyad had the audacity to write such articles without bothering to acknowledge the fact that the regime in Iran is the biggest terrorist entity in the whole universe. And yet he claims to be professional. He never knew that Iran supplied Abu-Musab Zarqawi in part and parcel, everything including gunpowder. But still, Zyad claims the GCC was behind the destabilization of Iraq LoL. The Americans openly admitted for the first time that Iran was responsible for the bombings of their allied troops in Iraq back in 06 ,brining us to conclusion that the Iranian regime is the most despicable entity of all time. It's Iran that supported Hezbollah ever since it was created in the mid 80s. Hezbollah's warmongerish behavior is a cancer in our region. However, the Safavid Republic of Iran didn't stop at this level. They smuggled weapons to the Palestinian militia and Iran previously know how the Israelis will respond but never bothered at all. It didn't stop at this level though, Iran is poking its a$$ in every single country in the Middle East , you name it!

hating dictators is natural for every human being specially in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar which are supporters of terrorism and creating bloodshed in the region.

Your fanatic Mullah's days are numbered

 

[Controlled Pair]

Little correction. I am not against democracy. I am against the forced Western styled democracy that you have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thing is those countries are not ready for democracy and it shows. Democracy is a bigger hindrance for any development in those countries because everyone now want a bit of the cake. The Middle East, is a region where you need strong rulers who can make unpopular decisions.

Democracy cannot succeed or be imported to a population that not even knows what it is in reality and how it functions. If KSA was located in Europe I would want democracy.

But how can I say that I want democracy when I know that it will fail in Saudi Arabia in the year 2013 as in every country in the Middle East? People need to be exposed to a real democracy before that even succeeds.

And KSA is different than any other country. You know, the land of the Two Holy Mosques. It's not as easy as you think. It is much easier for Iran to have real democracy even thought they never had democracy as well in their history.

It took Europe 100's of years to get democracy after genocides, massacres, the two most bloody wars in world history (WW1 and WW2) and then you Westerners think that democracy will come overnight to a region that never had it and maybe don't want the kind of democracy that is found in the West.

French democracy is not the same as Israeli democracy. Brazilian democracy is not the same as Indian democracy. Do you get what I am saying?

You make me sound like I am some kind of cavemen with all due respect. That's what most people thing when somebody, in the West or somewhere else, says that Western styled democracy is not the best right now or that it need modifications or something alike.

Also KSA is a very conservative society already and by nature due to the importance of Islam and other historical reasons that do not fit into this thread.

Watch this video and you will understand what I mean (talk about Western styled democracy in the Middle East).

Al-Qaeda Does Not Exist !! - Former CIA Officer Michael Scheuer Speaks Out !! - YouTube

Really? I pictured you as a cave man with goats

I know what you mean. As an Israeli I used to tell people in Europe that Israelis know Arabs the best, and that at the moment some of them still need a dictator (obviously one that doesn't kill his own people is preferable) but Europeans don't quite understand. They think that's racist.

I think in the Facebook/Twitter age that Arabs are ready for a democracy in terms of voting for a leader. That's not such a big step. The Iraqis are doing it. The palestinians sometimes do it. The Arabs in Israel do it.

I think a free press is important (as long as they don't blaspheme - I guess that's important to you)

These are basic rights which Arabs are ready for.

Saudi I think should make the royal family the figureheads - but introduce an elected government.

Public beheading should be the first thing scrapped. That really gives Saudi a bad image.

Change is inevitable. It's just that the west feels that it has earned democracy and it's trying to help others get it - but does it in a really clumsy way. I think Iraq, Egypt and the Hamas (one off) election has taught the west a lesson about Arab democracy.

Baby steps needed.

The problem is that the west gets slated by Arabs themselves for propping up dictators and then gets slated for trying to implement democracy.

Iran is the most ready for democracy I think.

Also, it's harder for democracies to fight each other - which is a good thing.

 

[mohsen]

Your fanatic Mullah's days are numbered

right now, It's your beloved dictators, who are falling one after another.
ben ali, qasafi, mubarak, abdullah saleh are done already.

next in the queue:
Al saud, Al khalifa, ban hamad ...

 

[Alshawi1234]

I didn't say anyone wants direct military intervention. What the gulf states want is proxies, like the Iraqi civil war during 2005-2008, or like what's happening in Syria right now. *The Gulf states want a Sunni "revolution" in Iraq to counter the Shias, which they see as "Iranians". What I'm seeing is leave the Iraqi Sunnis and Shias alone, if you have a problem with Iran, go sort it out with them.

As for Syria, no Iraqi is against a Sunni government. But we are against the way change is being made. You can't transform into democracy through alqaeda fighters. *All Iraqis would support a peaceful solution right now. Assad and the opposition get together and agree to make elections under international supervision, but without allowing any candidates from alqaeda or the Jubhat al nusrah.*

You keep bringing up the same subject which were already discussed. The gulf states were all supporting terrorism in Iraq indirectly, they were giving cash to a third party, and in turn that party will support terrorism. That doesn't make the Gulf states any less guilty.*

As for who supported the invasion, we already discussed that a million times, Saudi Arabia wanted to keep saddam because they believed it was better for him to rule a weak Iraq rather than the Shia coming into power. *The rest of the gulf states supported the invasion. *The idea of Iran Being involved is a myth. *They just happened to benefit in the process.*

As for violent Iraqis, well, wasn't it the gulf states supporting the war against Iran? Isn't it the gulf states states which still consider saddam a hero although he destroyed Iraq, Isn't it from the Gulf states where the US launched its invasion. Isn't it from Saudi Arabia where the rotten whahabi ideology originated and till this day is killing tens of people daily. I advice you to stop preaching.How do you expects us to support a revolution which sings about beheading Shias and other monorities? How do you expect us to respect people who bomb us everyday, while it is clear where they get their support from?*

Iraqi Shias don't hate sunnis, but they have been slaughtered for the past 40 years, over one million killed and over 3 million forced to flee Iraq, can you blame them? Most of the casualties are because of Arab support.*
The way I see it, is that over the past 10 years, most Sunnis have turned from moderate to becoming extreme. The speeches coming out of the *Gulf, in north Africa, and in other countries are all becoming increasing anti-Shia, hating on the Shias of Iraq especially while totally ignoring the miseries they have been through. They never condemn the daily terrorist attacks that occur against them daily. There is a significant minority within sunnis which support alqaeda (Jihadist salafis/ Wahabis) and other terrorist groups who take pride in bombing shias, and even sunnis in some cases. *Most Iraqi Shias resent the type of rule in Iran, but all the conspiracies and killings against them gave them no choice but to choose a side.*

Shias don't want to conquer any place, that idea is totally unrealistic. *What we need is religious tolerance. Treat all humans as humans, let them be whatever religion they want whether Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jew....

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

@Alshawi1234

I hold any radical member accountable. You and I talked about how tolerant Iraqis are ,and I can testify in your favor from my own experience.
I do believe in what you have said. Quite frankly, I'm a big supporter for the Iraqis overall ,I just despise the Safavid attitude. I'm sure one day Iraq will warmly be hugged in the AL as stronger fellow of ours as it used to be.

right now, It's your beloved dictators, who are falling one after another.
ben ali, qasafi, mubarak, abdullah saleh are done already.

next in the queue:
Al saud, Al khalifa, ban hamad ...