Britain, France and Germany blame Iran for attack on Saudi oil fields

Yeah, but to expand on what I was saying, as I have mentioned, I am spending a lot of time in Turkey these days. When we are here, my wife is invariably assumed to be Russian -- even by the Russians! One day, we were shopping at this store, and the owner of the store assumed my wife was Russian and she told him, no, I am Iranian. He looked at me and said in his broken English: well, your husband may look Iranian, but you don't look Iranian! (In Iranian classification of these things, my wife would be "white" and I would be "gandomi' or "wheatish" in complexion).

But that story brings me to another one. From a linguistic perspective, the "Iranian people" include the Scythians - who occupied the huge landmass north of the Iranian plateau from the Danube in the West to Syr Darya and where Central Asia met the Far East. The story of these Iranian people, and the wars between IRAN and TURAN (Turko-Mongol tribes), is the recurring theme of Iran's epic, the Shahnameh (Book of Kings), which tries to tell the story of mankind from creation to the Arab invasion of Iran through a mix of folklore, legend, myths and some history. Some of these people moved to the Iranian plateau, namely the Persians and the Medes where their confederacy became the basis for the Persian Empire of the Achaemenids. Others moved elsewhere, including to Europe and others to the Indian subcontinent. Each of them mixing and mingling with whoever was there before them, giving rise to the Indo-European family of languages. The people whose roots can be most closely linked to these Scythians are actually the Slavic people, including the Russians.

 

Yes I think that the claim was that Iran is the base of much of Europe's civilisation.

Hmm well here you see the Scots in the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320, claim to come from Greater Scythia.

https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle-2-15039/the-text-of-the-declaration-of-arbroath-1-465230

though Ulster Scots believe they come from Israel due to this coming after the above from that same declaration

I saw a fascinating video of an ancient very rich civilisation in Iran a few weeks ago - believed to be very peaceful.

 

I wouldn't know, but to the extent there is a connection between Scots and Ashkenazi Jews, it could still be linked back to the Scythians
http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/yiddish-language-slavo-iranian-jewish-merchants-03797.html
Yiddish Language was Invented by Slavo-Iranian Jewish Merchants, Scientists Say

While most of the Iranian plateau was largely uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Iranian tribes as people there were still part of a hunting society with a very low population density, there were thriving pre-Iranian civilizations on its periphery. Most notable among them was the Elamite civilization centered in what is now Iranian Khuzistan in the southwest. Maybe the video you were watching was about them?

 

I have checked some photos and yes it looks like it was them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ela...kAhWBQhUIHVr9DG8Q9QEwCnoECAkQCQ#imgrc=_&vet=1

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...kAhWDsnEKHWnkAYAQ7Al6BAgJECQ&biw=1096&bih=591

(I'll check your link out)

 

We lost in Vietnam because the US never committed to all out war and at the end decided to pull out because popular support at home could no longer support it. It's the modern equivalent to loss through attrition. Except the attrition was homeland support and motivation. I mean at the start we had no reason to be there. It was never in our interests, so I'm glad we pulled out even though it gave us a loss. Never should have been there, just like we never should have been in Afghanistan. The "losses" not occurring, being the least important reasons for not being there.

I mean we could have just bombed the country to dust but we didn't. There were no front lines as in WW2 as the whole thing was mostly all out tropical forest guerrilla warfare where the attacking side never actually committed to pushing hard and then fully occupying. You are seeing these wars as similar to WW2 where there were clear lines when they were more occupation wars. Afghanistan is almost all mountains and desert. Don't go around telling people how if it was Germanies war you would have easily won. A bunch of nonsense. You would have won the same as the US if either had actually committed, not to mention at the time Germany wasn't Germany.

There hasn't been a full out war between nations since WW2 and you might be right the west has become fat since it has been so long. And there shouldn't be one.

But if you want to lead the next NATO war, since you understand modern military strategy so well, I'd recommend building and maintaining a military first before making any grand statements.

----As for the OP in general
War with Iran would be brutal and relatively swift, the first real war since WW2 and it is not something to take lightly. NATO has been sucking up to Saudi Arabia for far too long and we shouldn't be taking orders from them. Trump is a traitor.

 

I think that the people writing the declaration were probably being romantic due to their relationship with the Bible. The Ulster Scots because they identify with Israel as Colonialists. There does not seem to be any genetic reality to this. Scotland has a very diverse DNA

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17740638

 

Atlas Shrugged is in all the libraries in Arabia. Most of the bookstores in Arabia are owned and operated by women.. so are most of the publishing houses.

 

Prove it.

 

LOLOL.. I have been to lots of libraries and universities in Arabia.. How about YOU?

 

Explain this: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/sau...-from-bookstores-1770546?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

 

Proving what? I’ll tell you what you do: Take video of any Muslim woman dressed in a business skirt with no head covering and walking unaccompanied by a male relative into a Riyadh book store buying an Arabic version of Atlas Shrugged. Then post it here and prove to me what you say is true. I’ll be impressed. Maybe even change my mind.

 

So this is a lie:

“Merely bringing up the idea of peeling Islam away from state power is incendiary. Ask Raif Badawi, a blogger and activist. “Secularism respects everyone and does not offend anyone,” he wrote, noting that it “is the practical solution to lift countries (including ours) out of the third world and into the first world.” Badawi hoped to spur discussion of secularism, gender equality, and what he called liberalism in society (“For me, liberalism simply means, live and let live,” he wrote). But in the Saudi monarchy, as in the Islamic State, these views are unthinkable.”

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/fore...disrupt-the-scandalous-us-saudi-relationship/

 

We have pulled to Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn out of school libraries in the US.

 

Some school libraries, not by government fiat, but by social warriors afflicted with post-modern neurosis.

 

A couple of years ago they had another international book fair in Jedda and some mutaween crashed it to protest the books. They were thrown out on their ears.

 

Half-lies? Or made up from whole cloth?

Saudi Religious Police Return to the Streets of Riyadh

Kingdom caught between desire to modernise and need to pacify ultra-conservative Islamic influences dominant in its society

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...mohammed-bin-salman-vision-2030-a7808796.html

 

There aren't many Mutaween in Jedda or the Eastern province and they are banned from Yanbu and Jubail. They are considered pests. Periodically the SAG rounds them up to reeducate them because they overstep their boundaries.

 

Well, well, perhaps I judged too harshly--I actually found a story to back you up...or is it fig leaf?

A year after curbing its power, the Saudi religious police is deemed redundant by many--
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1076321/saudi-arabia

 

There weren't any religious police until 1979.. The Iranian Revolution and Siege of the Grand Mosque scared the wits out of the Saudis.

I have been all over KSA and truthfully, I have never seen one.

 

And yet anotherL

Rise and fall of the Saudi religious police
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1558176/saudi-arabia

The question remains, dead or dormant? I fear the latter ready to spread its evil infection of religious tyranny at first opportunity--they are not banned, just slightly declawed.

 

As I said.. the Saudi people consider them pests.

 

Time will tell, pest or plague. The Saudis still operate under Shia. Until secularism takes hold at the root, religious tyranny will always be lurking. But it is slightly encouraging, very slightly.

Still liked to see that video, though. It would be almost too fantastic to be real.

 

Shia? They are a tiny minority in Arabia mostly in Qatif and Hofuf.

 

My bad, Sharia.

 

Oh yeah.. the Mutaween aren't really Sharia.. They are sort of self appointed busy bodies that have been tolerated by the people and the government.