Hezbollah blames Saudi for embassy attack
Source: Al Jazeera
The leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah has accused Saudi Arabia of being behind last month's two suicide bombings that targeted the Iranian Embassy in Beirut.
Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's comments on Tuesday mark the first time Hezbollah has openly accused the kingdom, and marks a sharp escalation in the Shia Muslim group's rhetoric.
An al-Qaeda linked group has claimed responsibility for the November 19 attack that killed 23 people, saying it was in response to Hezbollah and Iran's involvement in Syria.
Nasrallah said the claim was credible but accused Saudi intelligence of providing backing and support.
Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/12/hezbollah-blames-saudi-embassy-attack-2013123232216638523.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Hizbu'llah and Iran have been treating Saudi predations with kid gloves for decades, it's about time--well passed time, in fact--they began treating the Wahhabi/Zionist menace for precisely what it is, rather than treating only the latter as a more palatable and safe fix-all explanation so as to not "offend" the Saudi elephant in the room.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And blaming the "Wahhabi/Zionist" menace. Now I've seen everything.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Wake me if/when you might have something of substance to add to the topic. Did you understand the preceding post, or are you the sort that just latches onto a couple key words like red flags before raging bulls? Emotional (p)outrage tends to cloud judgement on these occasions.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Please proceed.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Nothing more than this zero-calorie driveby was really expected, given what of yours that I have read previously.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)a 2-for-1 slap.
well, at least it creative.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Really, there was more to that post than the couple disconnected fragments presently playing the part of 'red hankerchief'-- any thoughts on the broader (actual) subject or is shallow (p)outrage the only item on the menu?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is whining because nobody else is picking up his banner. Boo hoo.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)There does seem to be a sort of de facto alliance brewing between Israel and Saudi Arabia, at least on some issues. Kinda weird, ain't it?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You want me to take the poster referring to the Zionist menace seriously? Go bark up another tree - I ain't interested.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Well in keeping with what may be expected from certain sources, there is so much error compressed into a (mercifully) concise space.
For reasons I cannot fully justify to myself, deconstructing your incretinations fragment by fragment:
Who is this relative newbie? Would that be your humble narrator--aka the regular poster of slightly over five years? Weird. When does this N00B trial period expire?? I could be erupting approximately 11,473 instances of shallow wordvomit like certain people I could mention, but I do not equate prolific writing with quality efforts.
Whining? Oh, I see what you did there! For starters, I require nobody to take up my "banner"--I don't know if you noticed, but the style I take in these instances is not exactly tailored towards engendering converts among my sparring targets. It's fairly simple, so let me scratch it out in crayon for you: You are not the target audience, and I don't expect much of anything--far less, agreement--from the ranks of the thinking intolerant that do, at least, provide good entertainment in the course of providing fodder for my discussion. Those who do not have their views indelibly etched can--and often do, according to the PMs I regularly receive--take much informative direction from the experience, and those that do--and are more reflexively inclined to oppose--can take much walloping (or at least as much afforded in the rather dubious course of arguing over the Internet).
If there was any whining--and indeed, such pejorative is subjectively determined by whether one agrees with it or not, so I'll even let the phrase slide because I value your disdain--it is in the absolutely lazy efforts from your legion to oppose what I have suggested. "YES, I SAID IT--now do you have anything to add?" is an exhortation to substantive action, not lamenting your disagreement. In truth, I greatly value the strong disagreement from certain sources--I might begin to seriously question myself if the opposite were true.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You outed yourself in your first comment. There is nothing you can say to me I have the slightest bit of interest in hearing.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Great work investigator, you managed to beat a confession out of the suspect! Please prepare your report for the section chief by the 0900 briefing.
It is strange: you claim no interest in your humble narrator, yet cannot turn away. And as an aside, I feel compelled to inform you that coughing up the written equivalent of 'standing with glazed eye and gaping jaw' does not really make for a convincing counter-point, please expend some effort in this process--or why bother me in the first place?
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)if they are on the side currently being promoted by manipulators and warmongers. Telegraphing their patterns like this makes it obvious that the effort will be to stop a Shia Bomb. I personally don't think public opinion in favor, or not of war will have any hope of stopping them. This is similar to pipelines we used to bleed Russia in Afghanistan 35 years ago. We got stabbed in the back for that wonder what the blowback is this time.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But no surprise here, I would have expected the Saudis to be involved at some level. They seem to be having an existential crisis.
I had noticed recently that the Iranian government is trying to "reach out" to the Saudis:
http://www.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/irans-fm-urges-saudi-to-work-jointly-for-stability/
