So at the same time, Qatar gets busted for being THE bad guys behind al-Qaeda (not al-Namechange Front), ISIS, and even the Obama-coddled threat of the Muslim Brotherhood all over the region - and at the same time they were caught openly praising Iran (and denying it of course), and coddling Israel, which matters why? Street cred? You can allege as you've always wanted to that all the bad stuff(and definitions vary by audience but ISIS is usually included) comes from Iran, Assad, anyone you don't like. And (if you're talking to the masses, or in general like this) heck, from Isreel too. They work through Qatar, as the hinted allegation now goes, and it seems this was just figured out recently. Huh.
Sounds like the kind of stupid superheroes cartoon story KSA's rulers or the Qataris themselves would come up with. That's clear. Debate will be about why. I'll try to read up. Or maybe not... I could stand to catch up elsewhere first. I just love how stupid their history books are going to have to be, even compared to now. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure part of the why now, and the main one, is the ever-influential Brits now feel a serious need to address something Saudi-like, which everyone knows is the root cause. Qatar was deemed a better sacrifice - the current rulers, not the place, Overwhelming and stangely unanimous out-of-nowhere mass pressure, with a clear goal of regime change - probably superficial - a new prince, who will swear to launch an investigation, some mino changes to clarify the point, nothing else. But, depending on what I'm missing, it could be bigger than that.--Caustic Logic (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Don't think such horse-spatting will make a proper Brit happy. Looks more like MAGA. Also, big weapons contract to SA has (to overcome) some resistance. So, next time a horse-spatting opportunity arrived, there was a reason to give it a public venue. FWIW . --Resup (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the UK government wants any kind of trouble with Qatar, which has huge investments in the UK. This looks like another reckless and ill-judged adventure by the deputy crown prince MBS. The result is to drive Qatar into the arms of Iran. As with the Yemen intervention, the UK will go along with it because UK foreign policy is bought and paid for by the House of Saud. There have been several reports over the last ten years about a gigantic UK-Saudi slush fund generated by arms deals going back to the 1980s (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8286b10-2833-11dc-80da-000b5df10621.html), allegedly administered by MI6. This is likely to be a motive and a source of funds for the UK's involvement in Syria. Pmr9 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
U.S. civil war breaks out in Qatar
Americans accusing Qatar of supporting terrorists is like the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, both Saudi Arabia and Qatar have funded ISIS and al-Qaeda, but they have done so under American leadership. Terrorist training camps were set up in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but they were operated by the CIA. Qatar and Saudi Arabia paid for arms shipments to Syrian terrorists, but CIA "veterinarians" decided which terrorist group would get the weapons.
Actually there is nothing in Qatari domestic and foreign policy that sets it apart from the Obama administration and the Clinton administration in waiting. Qatar is a model country of free market corporate liberalism, where markets rule but socialist concepts like “democracy” and “workers rights” do not exist. Daily life in Doha is little different form any other global metropolis. Women can drive and walk around uncovered. Qatar has maintained relations with Iran, just like Obama did after the “nuclear” deal on Iranian uranium enrichment. Qatar supports Syrian “rebels”, but these are the very same groups that Obama and the U.S. liberal media support: #SaveAleppo etc.
The Saudi-Qatari rift reflects the widening gap in U.S. politics. Trump sided with Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran. Qatar doubts the resilience of the Trump administration and has instead sided with Hillary and The Resistance.
P.S. - The "Resistance" appeared 10 minutes later: someone on Facebook posted this link as a comment to my post: Russian hooker who slept with Trump mocks his “tiny penis” I deleted the comment but saved the link here. It would be interesting to study the psychology of the global "Resistance". One thing a have noticed, starting from Libya, is that the Resistance always has iPhones and selfie sticks. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
IMO, unlikely. No US interest to have hot war between allies, and enough weight to prevent something really undesirable (unlike, eg Ukraine, which can be used to weaken Russia). The only conceivable (partisan/rogue) benefit, more difficulties for the Trump admin, but a war will be an overshot for this. Actually, do not see any player seriously interested to have this war, in the first place. Oppositely pitched but matter-wise compatible NY Times op-ed here The Headless Superpower--Resup (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)