this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
18 points (95.0% liked)

politics

28826 readers
2318 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Iran, however, is not the only country framing the Iran war in religious terms. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is invoking God as being on the American side, while claiming that Iran is “hell-bent on prophetic Islamist delusions.”

When asked directly if he saw the war in religious terms, Hegseth basically said yes, preaching at length his own version of a militarized Christian doctrine.

PETE HEGSETH: The providence of our Almighty God is there protecting those troops. And we’re committed to this mission.

“That entire regime is led by radical clerics who don’t make geopolitical decisions,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio adds. “They make decisions on the basis of theology, their view of theology, which is an apocalyptic one that has to be taken very seriously.”

...🙄

In August 1996, Osama Bin Laden issued his own 11,500 word “fatwa” and declared holy war against US forces in the Arabian peninsula. “Your blood has been spilt in Palestine and Iraq, and the horrific image of the massacre in Qana in Lebanon are still fresh in people’s minds,” he said. The declaration followed the June 25th truck bomb attack at Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 US military personnel were killed and over 500 were injured.

That November, the still obscure bin Laden was interviewed and asked why there hadn’t yet been attacks in response. He replied, “If we wanted to carry out small operations, it would have been easy to do so after the statements, but the nature of the battle requires qualitative operations that affect the adversary, which obviously requires good preparation.”

Two years later, in February 1998, bin Laden issued a second fatwa, calling on Muslims to kill Americans anywhere in the world, a shift from focusing solely on Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. This fatwa inspired a new generation of fighters, including the generation that undertook the 9/11 attacks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, now seems like just as good a time as any to remind the reality based community of the crown prince's comments regarding 9/11 in 2025 when he was invited to the White House by Trump:

The moment he was asked about Saudi Arabia’s role, the polished veneer cracked. After offering a few seconds of hollow sympathy, he shifted into a lecture on Osama bin Laden’s motivations and admonished Americans to “focus on reality.” For the thousands of families who lost loved ones on 9/11—and for the investigators, intelligence officers and bipartisan lawmakers who spent more than two decades uncovering the truth—his comments were not just dismissive. They were offensive.

Then came the most alarming claim: that Saudi Arabia was actually the victim because Al Qaeda supposedly targeted the U.S.-Saudi relationship. That is not reality. It is gaslighting. It ignores a substantial body of evidence showing that Saudi government officials—paid through the Ministry of Islamic Affairs and stationed in American cities—provided support to the hijackers before the attacks.

For years, the kingdom’s strategy was simple: deny, deflect and make the problem go away through political pressure. That ended on August 28, 2025, when federal Judge George Daniels rejected Saudi Arabia’s latest attempt to escape accountability and concluded after 13 months of careful review that the record collectively supports a determination that the Saudi government “knowingly, or at least with deliberate indifference, participated in supporting the [911] hijackers “terrorist activity.”

And even thought it's doesn't fit the reality Hegseth is trying to create, probably a good time to also remember what actually preceded the U.S. attacking Iran to "help defend Israel in this holy war."

Push from Saudis, Israel helped move Trump to attack Iran

The Saudi crown prince, actually preemptively lobbied for Trump to attack Iran multiple times in the month leading up to the attack.

Because it's in the Bible...?