Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia Mass Executions Include Shiite Cleric, Iranian Protesters Attack Saudi Embassy, Sparking Regional Dispute

Other countries pulling in, oil prices volatile over conflict.

|

via CNN

On Saturday, January 1, Saudi Arabia executed 47 people. That number is up to 100 now, just three days into 2016, and according to Human Rights Watch nearly half were for non-violent drug offenses. Saudi Arabia executed 88 people in all of 2015. Saudi Arabia, of course, is an ally of the United States, and the executions, the norm in the Saudi kingdom, triggered more-or-less the usual response from the U.S. A statement from a State Department spokesperson noted the U.S. government has brought up concerns about Saudi Arabia's "legal process" before and called on the country "to respect and protect human rights, and to ensure fair and transparent judicial proceedings in all cases."

The State Department statement did mention one specific execution however, that of Nimr al-Nimr, a Shiite cleric and political activist, whose death the spokesperson said "risks exacerbating sectarian tensions at a time when they urgently need to be reduced."

According to Arab News, a paper owned by one of the al-Sauds, the Saudi royal family, the government convicted al-Nimr "of committing eight crimes and delivering numerous hostile and fiery speeches since 2002 which led to the death and injury of several police officers." Al-Nimr was accused of supporting "terror cells" that clashed with security forces, and of accusing Saudi leaders of blasphemy and calling for public uprising.

Shiite-majority Iran protested the execution, summoning the Saudi ambassador in Tehran. "The execution of a personality such as Sheikh Nimr who had no means other than speech to pursue his political and religious objectives only shows the depth of imprudence and irresponsibility," a foreign ministry spokesperson said.

Demonstrators gathered outside the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and according to CNN, at least one person started throwing "homemade firebombs" at the embassy before other protesters made their way into the building, which was empty at the time, to ransack it and start a fire.

Saudi Arabia said it was severing diplomatic relations with Iran after the attack on the embassy. And Saudi Arabia's gulf allies have started to join in. Bahrain also severed its diplomatic relations, and the United Arab Emirates said it was "downgrading" its relations with Iran. Further afield, Sudan, another majority-Sunni nation, recalled its ambassador to Iran and expelled Saudi Arabia's ambassador and entire diplomatic mission from the country.

Iran's government, meanwhile, insisted it was not involved in the attack on the embassy that it was treating the attack seriously, that it was committed to protecting diplomats, and that Saudi Arabia was using the attack as an excuse to inflame tensions between the country.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two major powers in the region, and last year entered a proxy war in Yemen, between Iranian-backed Shiite rebels and the Saudi and U.S.-backed Yemeni government, which was expelled from the capital in a rebel coup. United Nations-brokered ceasefires have been regularly negotiated and broken over the last year.

Saudi Arabia has also been concerned with the agreement Iran reached with the U.S. and five other countries over its nuclear energy program. Along with Israel, though not in coordination with, Saudi Arabia was a major opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, worrying it would make its rival more powerful at its expense. The United States tried to allay Saudi Arabia's fears with a $1 billion arms package from the Pentagon.

Advertisement

NEXT: Pastor Sues Michigan over Right to Administer Purely Private Marriages

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Please let Kerry and Obama be either smart enough to stay our of this or ineffectual enough to keep this regional.

    1. I would bet on “ineffectual”…

      “The execution of a personality such as Sheikh Nimr who had no means other than speech to pursue his political and religious objectives only shows the depth of imprudence and irresponsibility,” a foreign ministry spokesperson said.

      And then promptly returned to funding Hezboallah and sending the IRGC to Syria.

      Can we chain the Saudi royals to the IRC and fling both into the Gulf?

      1. If it would not have horrible environmental effects on the rest of the world, the entire Islamic Middle East nuking itself to extinction would make the world a much better place.

    2. Ineffectual is always a sure bet. Smart? That is a bit of a long shot. I think it is a very good bet Obama will blunder us into the middle of this.

      1. I really get a Vietnam War vibe out of this: an uneccesary war waded into and conducted ineffectually and bloodily for entirely domestic political concerns.

        1. Whose side are we on?

          1. Everyone’s on the losing side.

          2. Whose side are we on?

            The only accurate answer to this question is “Yes”.

            1. Well, I mean the barbaric executioners Saudis are our friends, right? And Iran is part of the Axis of Evil. So it seems obvious whose side we’re on, but our leaders have come to the point of making no sense, that I just don’t know.

              1. Hyperion, we have done more to help Iran over the last several years than we have for any other ME country. If actions speak louder than words, then Iran is one of our besties, now.

          3. This 3 part article someone (tarran? je suis woodchipper?) posted the other day is actually a good answer to that question.

            The whole thing is worth reading for a 1979-to-now history of US retardation vis a vis the middle east. Basically, we’ve spent decades ‘validating’ Sunni regimes who continue to fight proxy wars via ‘radicals’, while using the US to do their “heavy lifting” versus Iraq & Iran.

            Part III has some whoppers =.

            “so long as the West plays Erdogan’s multiple-double game, why should Erdogan stop playing it? So long as the Sunni Muslim communities in the West pay no price for nurturing the thirst for infidel blood, what argument can convince them to stop nurturing it?

            To romance today’s Sunni leadership by word or deed, thus validating and “empowering” it, is to confirm the Sunni world in the course that al Sisi characterized so courageously. It is to ensure that Daesh/ISIS or something worse will plague us increasingly, indefinitely.”

            1. I think the retardation started before 1979. But I’m going to check it out.

              1. The key moment for the author seems to hinge on when the US perceived the issue being a “Sunni vs Shiite” cold-war, and that we were ultimately on the side of the former ‘no matter what’.

                i think before then, that dynamic was less relevant.

              2. also, Warning = he closes the 3 part analysis (and a very good one) by declaring that the US will probably have to unilaterally go to war w/ ISIS.

                which will probably invalidate him entirely from the POV of the knee-jerk nonintervenshuners. But the historical analysis is worth reading and considering completely aside from his conclusion, which i think is mostly a separate argument. I think his point that we should stop being the backstop for fundamentally-dishonest Sunni regimes (all of them) is a good one regardless. our guarantees free them to have their cake and eat it too, re: ISIS etc.

                missing from his piece was any mention of Israel, which i think was a little odd. I’d guess he’s written about it elsewhere, but i think its hard to talk about policy in the region w/o settling that up front.

            2. Hi GILMORE, that someone was moi.

              Do I tip my hat to myself?

          4. Well, if this was religious world war 3, and the West was the West, Iran&Syria; were Russia, and the Sunni/Baathists/royals were fascists, then we would be entering the war on the side of Italy, about a decade after Peal Harbor and while the Holocaust was ongoing.

            Say what you will about militant nationalism, it might be evil but at least it fucking makes sense.

        2. What Hyperion said. I can honestly see these idiots getting us involved supporting both sides. I am not kidding. They are that fucking stupid.

          1. Just when we thought their foreign policy couldn’t get more clusterfucky than Syria, there will be this Iran-Saudi Arabia row. I guess there is no such thing as peak clusterfuck.

          2. I can honestly see these idiots getting us involved supporting both sides

            We already support both sides. We are long-time supporters of the Saudis, and we are brand-new supporters of the mullahs.

            Only Obama could put us on both sides of a 900 year old civil war. Pure genius.

            1. Can we support the Medes? Or maybe the Lydians?

          3. I’m going to play it safe and say that we’re on the side of the ‘good’ 7th century barbarians.

          4. Our side will be nuanced.

        3. “We’re going back to Iraq! This time as the bad guys.”

          1. What were we the last time?

            1. Willing to leave when asked?

              1. After we effectively destroy whatever government we choose to support, we’ll probably be ready to willingly leave again.

        4. More like the Iran-Iraq War. Neither is strong enough to win it. If Iran tries to actually get to Saudi Arabia overland through Iraq and maybe Kuwait, then we have a real regional war.

          Otherwise it would just be proxy conflicts and throwing jabs across the Gulf. Saudis have the best military hardware that money can buy, so Iran would probably take more damage in that kind of fight.

          1. Looking at a topo map it looks like Iran is pretty much safe from any invasion. Holy crap do they have mountains.

            1. That’s what the 82nd Airborne is for. It makes sense!

                1. No, we will drop the 82nd beyond the natural mountain defenses.

            2. Didn’t China invade Tibet?

              1. That’s an apples to oranges comparison. Tibet is one of the most sparsely populated regions on Earth, Iran is decidedly less so.

    3. I have no doubt that President Dunning-Kruger will understand that the United States have no business in the volatile affairs of Islamic regimes on the other side of the world.

      1. He already shit on the chessboard.

  2. Sudan, another majority-Sunni nation, recalled its ambassador to Iran

    OH NOES

  3. Shi’ite-majority Iran protested the execution, summoning the Saudi ambassador in Tehran. “The execution of a personality such as Sheikh Nimr who had no means other than speech to pursue his political and religious objectives only shows the depth of imprudence and irresponsibility,” a foreign ministry spokesperson said.

    Pot, I’d like to introduce you to Kettle.

    1. I await with mad glee the day when, after we primly shake our finger at some country over rights, they snarl back some version of smelt-it-dealt-it.

      It will be glorious.

      1. What are you talking about? that’s like “Every Day in the UN”

        1. *hand waves*

          Globally. Pfft. Foreign starts with F, as does fantasy, and we don’t live in la-la land, Mister.

          /pretty much every American, ever

    2. I MADE THIS JOKE ALREADY

      Ed’s failure to note Iran’s own long and varied history of ‘murdering writers‘, declaring Fatwas, etc. is almost as bad as Robby’s lazy pass over the “Bahn Mi” sandwich-pun. This is punditry 101, people. (sigh) The vacation is over.

      1. I thought you were going to reference Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society. Wow did that guy not take criticism well. Kind of set a bad precedence that all Islamic sects seem to agree on.

        http://www.answering-islam.org….._poets.htm

  4. We really ought to use this as a jobs program. Offer both sides military grade weapons from our suppliers at a reasonable rate of return and watch the unemployment numbers drop.

    Also, jack the price on hazmat suits and NBC gear for the foreseeable future and put those factories on double shifts.

    1. “We have all of these F-35s lying around…”

      1. We have a lot more than that lying around:

        http://www.airplaneboneyards.c…..neyard.htm

        1. Why sell them useful aircraft when we have these shiny turds rolling off the line at a billion a pop? If they buy 300 each our cost is down to $350 mill each. They’re sorta stealthy but not. They’re sorta fast, but not. They’re failsafe for losing an enigine is ejection. It’s like they took all of John Boyd’s succesful ideas and did the opposite. Well, it probably actually provides a lot of lift, which was one of his keys.

          1. The Navy left the Marines alone on Guadalcanal over sixty years ago, so the Marines need their own jet that can take off vertically. Nothing else is important.

            1. I had the pleasure of a random conversation with a gentleman who’d been left on Guadalcanal without his shirt and boots due to the Navy. He hadn’t forgotten (of course it was only 40 years then!).

          1. The first time I drove that road was the second time I had been in Tucson. I had no idea that it went right through the boneyard. I almost drove off the road rubbernecking.

      2. Sell them our old stuff we were going to scrap and enough shitty F35s to put that money pit to rest.

  5. But don’t worry, a nuclear standoff between these two crazy fucks is totally cool. I mean once Iran gets nukes, I am sure Saudi Arabia will bet their lives on Iran never using them and would never go to Pakistan and get some of their own. And even if they did, a nuclear stand off between the US and Soviets and Iran and Pakistan has worked out okay. I am sure they ignorant crazy fucks are up to the task of not accidentally nuking each other.

    1. Iran India and Pakistan

      as a courtesy to those struggling to keep up without a score card.

      1. I should point out that Iran and Pakistan were fighting a proxy war for control of Afghanistan throughout the 90’s, so an Iran/Pakistani mexican standoff with nukes would be the best we could hope for if Iran got nukes. And I expect that the Pakistanis would not hesitate to provide them to Saudi Arabia in such an eventuality.

        1. I meant India. My typo. And yes, Pakistan will give nukes to the entire Gulf if Iran gets them. And that will be a disaster. Sadly, a nuclear war in the ME would have disastrous effects on the world climate and environment. If not for that, I would support giving them nukes on the bet they will kill each other before they get to us.

          1. Sadly, a nuclear war in the ME would have disastrous effects on the world climate and environment.

            How many nukes are we talking about here? This isn’t the USSR/USA circa 1965. A few dozen nukes in the ME won’t have much of an impact anywhere else in the world. There are plenty of good reasons to be worried about the ME. Nukes affecting the global climate is not one of them.

            1. I think even a few dozen would. I seem to remember reading that but maybe I am wrong.

              1. A few dozen multi-megaton h-bombs would (or might, honestly nobody really knows until it’s tried). The sort of nukes Iran and other ME(NA) countries would get their hands on would not be capable of that. The devastation would be regional and impermanent; think Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Worst case is Chernobyl.

                Hardly something to get excited about, but not world-ending. The real risk (to the West) is that they develop a delivery platform and can launch them against non-regional targets. But that too is a bit iffy.

              2. It depends on how big and how much particulate they spread to the atmosphere, but Nuclear Winterists dramatically underestimated the amount of material in volcanic plumes. A few dozen MIRVs with high yield warheads is far different from single vehicle missiles with kiloton rated instead of megaton rated devices. I don’t think a theater-scale nuclear exchange is comparable with a dinosaur killer meteor strike.

              3. Not noticably, I don’t think.

                Let’s not forget that “nuclear winter” was agitprop.

                1. And even if it wasn’t, it would counteract global warming, and is therefore a win.

                  1. Finally a realistic plan to stop climate change!

                2. Also, remember that the same assholes pushing the nuclear winter fears in the 80s predicted that Saddam igniting Kuwait’s oil wells would lead to massive climate change and famine.

              4. The US and USSR together acknowledge about 2000 devices detonated, with around 500 of those being above-ground. Granted this was spread out over several decades, but an individual test often involved firing dozens of devices over the course of a few months.

                I’m not saying there would be no effects. I’m just saying the effects would only be noticed by those who were actively looking for them. Pop culture has conditioned us to be much more afraid of nuclear stuff than makes sense.

            2. They might throw enough debris into the sky to cool global temperatures slightly. The environmentalist lobby should be cheering this on.

              1. Its a twofer for the greens:

                Millions of dead people, and a respite from global warming.

                I’m beginning to see why Obama gave Iran the green light for nukes. . . .

            3. The largest effect by far would be the disruption of the global oil supply. It would not be the end of oil or anything but it would rock the planet’s energy market and take many months to route around. Not to mention irradiating square miles of prime easy crude oil land.

              1. Making the US one of the leading oil producers on the planet…

                Lend em all some nukes.

                1. While i get your point, I am not a broken window kind of guy. I don’t think, unlike John, that killing millions of people and destroying productive land and resources is a net benefit to humanity.

          2. You and a lot of people talk about this like we’re capable of stopping them. Do we pull a Mossad and just start killing Iranian scientists? Do we level Tehran? Maybe we can sanction it out of them, but Pakistan and North Korea have nukes, and it’s not like they’re real affluent.

            1. We could delay them a very long time with a prolonged and coordinated air campaign. Yes, a single surprise raid would likely not do it. A prolonged air campaign that targeted all of their facilities and leadership would likely set them back a decade or more.

              Iran has some very good air defense systems. They would not, however, stand up to a determined US attack. Once their air defense systems were gone, you could systematically destroy all of their known facilities. You could also get most of their scientists in the initial surprise attack. Sure some scientists would survive and some facilities are still secret. But the vast majority are not and a prolonged air campaign would leave their program in ruins. Such a campaign could also destroy their long range missile capacity.

              1. I don’t see the political willpower to make that happen. And what’s to stop Russia or China from just handing Iran some ready-made weapons?

                1. No, we don’t have the will power. And as a result Iran is going to get nukes and use them on someone. The only issue is who that someone will be. Hopefully it will be the Saudis and not us, but that is only a hope not a certainty.

                  This thing is going to end very badly. Islam has gone batshit insane. It has always been a backward and repressive religion but post 19th Century had been largely held in check. That is about to end and the question is will it try and destroy the West or destroy itself in a civil war.

                  1. the question is will it try and destroy the West or destroy itself in a civil war

                    Oh, the answer is definitely both. But if I may borrow from libertarian parlance, when you look at “stated vs. revealed preferences”, sure it’s clear that they want to destroy the West and have made no-shit heinous actions towards that end, but nothing gets them worked up quite like cleansing the infidels and fighting each other. I would never assume that they will always be embroiled in internecine conflict, but they are far more likely to spend the near future getting their jihad on against “fellow” Muslims. Maybe nukes will be the tools that allow one party to build a new Ottoman Empire. Even if they’re not used, the threat of having them can be pretty powerful. Or maybe they’ll nuke each other in an orgy of violence. More concerning will be the situations of Israel and the extant non-Islamic communities (Christians, Druze, etc.) in the region.

          3. -a nuclear war in the ME would have disastrous effects on the world climate and environment.

            Ahhhh, nuclear winter to offset global warming.

            1. refresh is your friend.

          4. Pakistan won’t give nukes to anyone. But they will sell them to the Saudis for huge sums of cash. The NKs, Russians, even the Chinese might jump in if the bidding is high enough.

        2. “Iran and Pakistan were fighting a proxy war for control of Afghanistan throughout the 90”

          And Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting proxy wars since… forever. since Sykes Picot. Since ’79. Since the Ali / Abu Bakr grudge match.

          That’s what Islamic theocratic regimes *do*. Pakistan is maybe distinct for being a Islamic Military Junta, but is not terribly different.

          1. What about Ali/Fraizer?

            1. There is probably a minority sect of Islam somewhere that is based around the idea that Joe Frazier was a maligned prophet

    2. The thing is they’d break any treaties they had if they really go hammer and tongs at each other, right?

  6. …triggered more-or-less the usual response from the U.S.

    “How do you get your prison unions to put up with drug executions instead of incarcerations? We have to execute our drug users during search/arrest.”

    1. China: “Who says you need prisoners to have a correctional officer’s union?”

  7. That number is up to 100 now, just three days into 2016, and according to Human Rights Watch nearly half were for non-violent drug offenses

    Our leaders will be in their bunk for a while.

  8. of committing eight crimes and delivering numerous hostile and fiery speeches since 2002

    You know who else wants to make hostile and fiery speeches illegal?

    1. Everyone who isn’t Trump in the GOP primary?

    2. Hillary Clinton and John McCain?

      1. Like being savages by a dead sheep.

  9. Shi’ite-majority Iran protested the execution, summoning the Saudi ambassador in Tehran. “The execution of a personality such as Sheikh Nimr who had no means other than speech to pursue his political and religious objectives only shows the depth of imprudence and irresponsibility,” a foreign ministry spokesperson said.

    That’s pretty rich coming from Iran.

    1. But they were all badinfidels!

      Hitchens’ account of how Rushdie made his way onto the Ayatollah Kholamola’s radar was particularly entertaining. Basically a Benghazi-esque give-me-someone-to-blame situation with Rushdie, this mousy little literary genius winding up in hiding for decades because AK had a bad week politically.

  10. Here’s our opportunity to sit back and watch all of the Theocracies in the ME destroy each other. Think we’ll blow it? I’m sure we will.

    1. Here’s our opportunity to sit back and watch

      And be mistaken for isolationists? Never. (cue Ride of the Valkyries)

      1. At least if we pick a side, we won’t have to worry about that side ever again.

  11. Demonstrators gathered outside the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and according to CNN, at least one person started throwing “homemade firebombs” at the embassy before other protesters made their way into the building, which was empty at the time, to ransack it and start a fire.

    Just delete the YouTube video that creates this and arrest the author.

    1. Employ smart power at its best.

      This is the first smart thing I have heard yet.

  12. Change Saudi Arabia to Oregon and drug offender with right-wing militia and watch all the proggies jerk each other off at the thought of beheadings.

    1. The Prog reaction to this thing in Oregon is really revealing. They so want to murder other Americans. Their reaction and glee over the thought of murdering a bunch of people for the crime of taking over an abandoned building is disgusting.

      1. The projection is just staggering. Your opponents want to live mostly in peace and maybe freeload a little bit (since when was that a bad thing for progressives?). You on the other hand want to slaughter them in an orgy of violence because they’re… bad people? Who don’t vote the right way?

        WTF

      2. I saw some pics of the “occupation” of that ranger station.

        I guarantee that if these people are allowed to leave peacefully, the station will be in better shape when they leave than when they got there. Any needed repairs will have been done, etc. I know (figuratively) these folks, and they just won’t be able to help themselves.

        “Bob, that light switch in the bathroom is kinda hinky. You got your tools?”

        A day later: “Man, the wiring in that building was shit, but I think we got it sorted out.”

      3. No, they want their god, government to murder other Americans. They’ll be hiding under their beds, peeing their jammies.

        1. yes. They would never get their hands dirty.

          1. Am I the only one who remembers the time they were calling for the government to create secret stockpiles of weapons that only the good people (progs that is) would know about, so that when the war with the right wingnuts break out, they could go get the weapons to fight with? That’s one of the most comical things I’ve ever heard. I can just see them ‘Oh, those look scary, how do they work? I dunno, I never shot one of those, you go first! Which end does the bullets go in?’

      4. No, ISIS wants to murder people. Progs, either out of cowardice or squeamishness, want to cause people to die without being directly involved. They prefer their long pork to come in a nice shrink-wrapped package from Whole Foods, not hunting and butchering it themselves.

    2. If a family member was charged under an anti-terrorism provision and made to return to prison for a longer sentence for doing controlled burns on BLM lands, I’d probably pick up a rifle, too.

      And I don’t give two fucks about the “but-yeah’s” Rolling Stone is doing about that anti-terrorism provision. It’s in there, it’s the law, and it was passed as part of the ant-terrorism law to cover terrorists who blow ship up and light stuff on fire.

      So solly GI that that it’s under the law. If you say, as RS does, that it’s not really anti-terrorism they’re being prosecuted under, then why is it in the provision, and maybe RS will take this moment to rail against broad, far-reaching legislation that captures all kinds of activity not really intended by the framers of such laws?

      I appreciate the sentiment and all that we’re having our libertarian moment because there are all sorts of laws that aren’t being “enforced”, but unfortunately, depending on the cylinder of democracy to land on an empty chamber isn’t the way to live your life.

      1. Nice, Paulperiod. I may steal that last line.

        1. Please do. I came up with it off the cuff one night when talking to a friend about voting in Seattle. I said it was like being forced to play Russian Roulette… the game never has a “good” outcome, but the best you could hope for is that in spinning the cylinder of Democracy, it might land on an empty chamber.

          1. That is fantastic.

      2. Selective enforcement is the name of the game. Everyone’s a criminal, Top Men get to pick and choose who to prosecute because there are just so many bad people out there.

  13. Yemen cease-fire also ended with peace talks failing.

    Shit could get real.

    1. But cease fires ending and failed peace talks are like every other day in the region. That said, yeah, this could be the final straw.

  14. My solution: A massive, multi-national force, led by the United States, should be deployed to the Middle East to keep the peace. It is the only way.

    1. It’s gonna work this time, I just know it.

      1. With the right people in charge, with the right strategy, it could. Plus, as we all know, World War II saved the U.S. economy, and another massive war would bring our economy right back. Additionally, what the Middle East really needs is democracy, and once they start to understand our way of life, they will accept it.

        1. what the Middle East really needs is democracy, and once they start to understand our way of life, they will accept it

          That’s a great idea, I wonder how come we haven’t tried that yet? Just a little regime change and it will all work out.

          1. I admit, I supported the Iraq war. (Of course, it wasn’t so much the war, as the occupation that was fucked up). And I got caught up in the idea that W and Natan Sharansky pushed that people naturally aspire to freedom. But that just is not so. If it were, we wouldn’t always have to keep fighting against the almost constant attempts to stifle liberty. In addition, this obsession with “democracy” is damn near pathological. If 50% of the people plus 1 want something, hey Majority Rules! Hell, look what happened in Gaza. Israel forcibly removed EVERY last settler from Gaza. The Arabs then proceeded to freely elected Hamas.

            If there is one thing that Iraq should have taught us, is that none of these Arab (or other Islamic religious) countries (even those who are technologically advanced) have a people who truly desire liberty. We gave it a good shot. Things were getting better and who knows, if Obumbles had actually tried to negotiate a new status of forces agreement, maybe Iraq would be a better place now. But these societies (not individuals) just have no concept of freedom.

            1. Most Americans have no concept of freedom, it’s beyond me why we would expect anyone else to.

              1. Exactly this. I was reading a story a couple days ago about recent Syrian immigrants in Brazil. They were saying that the amount of freedom in Brazil is scary. And the two things that seemed to bother them most was that no one there gave them free stuff like immigrants get in Europe and Canada and that the local mosque had little parties with colorful baloons, which they found disturbing. They dream of making it to Canada one day, where I guess there’s more free stuff, less freedom, and no scary baloons at the local mosque.

        2. Is that a quote from “The Neoconservative Manifesto”?

          1. I can also quote the strong, sensible, female, Democratic leadership manifesto, which was written by Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

            Their strategy involves a massive, strategic bombing campaign, as well as using special operators and CIA contractors to take out leadership we disagree with. After the leadership has been decimated, and the nation thanks us, we will insert a “puppet” regime that will be receptive to American customs and morals, and we will have another peaceful ally in the region.

            1. You had me at “sensible”.

              1. It helped win two elections. Truth.

            2. strong, sensible, female

              “I’ll admit it, i’m turned on by powerful women! Michelle Obama, Oprah, Condoleeza Rice, Serena… Williams… Wait a minute.”

        3. With the right people in charge, with the right strategy, it could.

          So even you think it’s doomed to failure.

    2. We need an immigration policy that will bring them here so we can fight them on our own ground.

      1. Put the two together. Go full Cytotoxic.

        1. “Kill them all, and let INS sort them out.”

          Something like that?

          1. Close the thread, we’re done here.

            1. Yeah, that sort of won the day.

      2. That’s one of best sentences I’ve written on H&R. It’s a Twitter ready.

      3. At least then the NRA gun crazies will have someone else to shoot at instead of our children!

        1. Some of us relish the challenge of small, fast-moving targets.

    3. Multi-national? Fuck you.

      Multi-cultural!!!

  15. There’s a Trump article above, everyone run!

  16. ISIS has money. They must be getting some of somewhere. I kinda doubt it’s the Catholic church this time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.