Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (110220)	1/27/2015 11:34:30 AM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Recommended By marcher Respond to of 219928

Good. The sooner you leave the better. The situation there reminds me too much of Iran in the 1970s, with the US under weak leadership then as now (Carter), a corrupt leadership (the Shah, now the House of Saud), and religious fanatics (the Ayatollah/ISIS) salivating at the thought of getting control over significant amounts of oil and religious symbols. But the situation now is much more dangerous because (1) Saudi Arabia is a much more significant producer of petroleum; (2) will be under assault by a much more fanatical and dangerous enemy, ISIS, whose global jihad intentions are much more potent than the Ayatollah's ever were; and (3) the current US leadership is far weaker and inept than the milquetoasts of the Carter Administration, viz., look at the incredible ineptitude Obama showed when Syria became an issue. As the author points out, the House of Saud made its own bed when it essentially adopted Wahabi tenets back in the day. It has endorsed fanaticism, so it is now in the position of justifying its corruption, libertine ways, etc., in the face of truly zealous fanatics. I once thought that ISIS was not particularly dangerous. I have changed my mind. If they turn south towards SA, there is a very distinct possibility that the Saudi armed forces will crumble in exactly the same way that the Shah's forces did. This would mean that the US would have to get involved, and there is no telling what would happen should that take place. I am sure that ISIS has supporters, cells, etc., all over the West which would get activated and would create havoc just as the US intervenes. ISIS seems to be able to fund itself fairly well. Imagine what it could do with Saudi funds. The recent change in succession, with a senile king 'in charge', does not bode well as the Saudi royalty will probably be more interested in palace intrigues concerning the next King than in protecting that vast unprotected Northeast border from ISIS. Don't know if you heard about it, but ISIS recently killed a top Saudi general who visited that border. They knew when he'd be there, knew where he was, and efficiently dispatched him despite what I assume were substantial security precautions to protect him. This of course means that there are lots of ISIS sympathizers in the Saudi armed forces. If this were a chess game, a pawn just took a rook. The general was a very significant figure as he was in charge of building the SA Maginot Line, and we know how well that worked. dailyrapid.com reuters.com This scenario is an elephant in the room on which there is very little public discussion. l find this amazing. History does not repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes, to repeat a cliché. But clichés are clichés because they contain some truth in them. We are seeing 1970s Iran rhyming with Saudi present, except that present is much, much more dangerous and volatile.