quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

An umbrella term actually dreamt up by the Americans

No they, really didn't. This is something that's been existing since the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

Have a look at that link I provided. The term Al Qaida to describe a terror network only started being used after 9/11.

quote:

Come on most of the hijackers were Saudi, Bin Laden's Saudi connections are common knowledge.

But did this come as a direct order from King Saud and his government or some elements within Saudi Arabia?

Regardless if Saudia Arabia is behind terrorism in any way shape or form why are they completely untouched?

quote:

This is my point though - American purport to be fighting this civilisation-saving battle against terrorism and yet they completely ignore the Saudis, a country clearly involved in radicalisation. What conclusions can you draw from this? Makes no sense unless you look for darker motives

Because the relationship between them is far more complex. There are elements, including the King, who are claiming to be on the side of the Americans and fighting the terror cells. Do I have to repeat what I typed previously?

It's not a complex relationship at all. They are a US backed dictatorship, America say jump they say 'how high'. They can choose to go against America of course but then they are on their own and will risk ending up like Gaddafi, Hussein and Assad. The fact is America can crack down on them at any point but choose not to. Surely you've heard about tampered, annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?

quote:

'The US had fed the al-Qa'ida scorpion and now it had bitten America. And so Washington now supports the opposition against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was helping Saudi Arabia and Qatar pour cash and weapons to the militias (including Salafists and al-Qa'ida) and would, inevitably, be bitten by the same "scorpion" if Assad was overthrown.'

It doesn't, it rather shows that they might have common enemies. Iran and the Taliban have had a proxy alliance recently, and they are ideological enemies, but they had a common adversary. The relationships can be a hell load more complex.

quote:

Have a look at that link I provided. The term Al Qaida to describe a terror network only started being used after 9/11.

quote:

Regardless if Saudia Arabia is behind terrorism in any way shape or form why are they completely untouched?

quote:

It's not a complex relationship at all. They are a US backed dictatorship, America say jump they say 'how high'. They can choose to go against America of course but then they are on their own and will risk ending up like Gaddafi, Hussein and Assad. The fact is America can crack down on them at any point but choose not to. Surely you've heard about tampered, annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?

quote:

Or maybe because Saudi Arabia is a politically unstable place and you have an oppressive King trying to satisfy both the Wahhab front, the more "liberal" front and the Americans, who is also doing its (very questionable and dubious) part in fighting terrorism there. It's a very divided and conflicted state. Also, they weren't all Saudis, there was also an Emirati and a Lebanese. There's a hell lot of problems in Saudi Arabia and on what their actions are (their aid in expanding Wahhibism is undeniable), but they are, or at least the Saudi government sell themselves as being, on the side of the States and not the people who orchestrated 9/11.

quote:

annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?

quote:

So basically you are saying that islamists are fighting alongside the Syrians to bring down their mortal enemies - the Syrians?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

Have a look at that link I provided. The term Al Qaida to describe a terror network only started being used after 9/11.

I did, I know the documentary and even saw some bits of it. It's by far Adam Curtis' weakest work.

So you only saw some bits of it and it's his weakest work? Are you saying it's inaccurate?

quote:

Regardless if Saudia Arabia is behind terrorism in any way shape or form why are they completely untouched?

Because the government is fighting it itself. It's a bit like Indonesia. You have terror cells emerging from there, however they also have spent a lot of money with groups like Detachment 88 to show that this is not the governments doing, is this truly a hard concept to grasp?

What's hard to grasp is the fact that they are clearly involved in radicalising muslims outside of Saudi Arabia - and yet America do nothing. It's not just about an internal struggle by the Saudis, it's their direct impact on external terrorism.

quote:

It's not a complex relationship at all. They are a US backed dictatorship, America say jump they say 'how high'. They can choose to go against America of course but then they are on their own and will risk ending up like Gaddafi, Hussein and Assad. The fact is America can crack down on them at any point but choose not to. Surely you've heard about tampered, annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?

I honestly doubt most of the Saudis give a damn about being in an absolute monarchy, and if the US weren't intervening here, the King Saud would be at the hands of the Wahhabis and the instability in the country would grow to no end (let alone the problems that can arise in Iran, it's no mystery that the Arabs and Persians have a tendency of detesting each other). And we all like the Wahhabis right and they've constantly proven to be champions of democracy. It's not possible that Saud's opponents in Saudi Arabia are even worse than who the US are backing. So yes, you have various factions at work. I truly have to repeat what I posted before.

The problem is you peddle is the standard line of those who back dictatorships. They are better off under one because they can't govern themselves, they'll turn instantly to terrorism etc. etc. It's codswallop.

quote:

Or maybe because Saudi Arabia is a politically unstable place and you have an oppressive King trying to satisfy both the Wahhab front, the more "liberal" front and the Americans, who is also doing its (very questionable and dubious) part in fighting terrorism there. It's a very divided and conflicted state. Also, they weren't all Saudis, there was also an Emirati and a Lebanese. There's a hell lot of problems in Saudi Arabia and on what their actions are (their aid in expanding Wahhibism is undeniable), but they are, or at least the Saudi government sell themselves as being, on the side of the States and not the people who orchestrated 9/11.

The Saudi government are a US backed dictatorship involved in radicalising muslims. Does this not filter into your mind? What 'liberal' front are they trying to satisfy here, women can't even drive in this country alone.

But you're seeing the Saudis as just one entity, well done, that's a very Gravitas way of looking at things.

HOW DARE YOU

Also, Gaddafi didn't go agaisnt America, he went agaisnt everyone and pissed off everyone. From Al Qaeda, to the Islamists to the British to the Libyans. Being from Malta I don't need any further explanations of how much of a psychotic infantile manchild he was and how his actions represented that trait. America hasn't attacked Assad and Hussien was no fucking angel himself (even if a means of control).

The whole destabilisation of Syria smacks of foreign involvement. You saying these heavily armed rebels just popped up out of nowhere? And lest we forget Gaddafi was a tosser for decades while we sold him arms and extradited people to be tortured by him. Do these double standards not register with you.

quote:

annotated Korans being printed by the Saudis as well to help radicalise people. Why the hell wouldn't America come down heavily on this if they really gave a shit about the 'War on Terror'?

Because the Saudi deny it and honestly, it is within their rights to do such a thing. America isn't a country to attack you for publishing a book.

So you are saying the Saudis have a right to send doctored Korans around the world and the Americans shouldn't give a shit despite them being involved in a war on terror?

quote:

So basically you are saying that islamists are fighting alongside the Syrians to bring down their mortal enemies - the Syrians?

No, I'm saying the Islamists are fighting along the Syrians (and Syrian Islamists) to bring down their mortal enemy, Assad's Baathist SOCIALIST SECULAR government, and increase their influence.

Lol Assad's socialist secular government is their mortal enemy? Or just a non-compliant Arab country being knocked over like they've been knocked over in a variety of fashions over the past 100 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy

Fluke, surely you can see the error in failing to differentiate between the various franchises of Islam?

There's clearly hatred between different sects of islam - my point is that the west is stoking these hatreds - classic divide and rule.

There is such a breadth of difference between Sunni and Shia theology that bin Laden effectively condemned every Shi'ite to death when he issued his jihad against the west.  In his eyes, they were apostates and therefore legitimate targets. 

Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation

That's why jihadists attacked Sadr City and various mosques in Iraq - not to kill occupying forces, but to wipe out more infidels.  al Qaeda see no distinction between the two - to paraphrase Bush, you were either for them or against them. 

US history shows that they use groups within countries to commit atrocites and start conflicts within their people. It has never been proved who has been conducting bombing campaigns in Iraq - but if we go by past tactics emplyed by the CIA it's clear false-flag terror is something they have used before to weaken nations.

al Qaeda's war is as much sectarian as it is anti-West.  Put it this way - questioning why Syrian would fight Syrian is akin to wondering why the IRA and UVF spent decades killing each other when they are both (notionally at least) Christian.  And to keep the comparison going, suggesting that the US should come down hard on Saudi Arabia is like invading Ireland because that's where Michael Collins was born.

quote:

There's clearly hatred between different sects of islam - my point is that the west is stoking these hatreds - classic divide and rule.

quote:



Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation

quote:



America should come down hard on Saudi Arabia because they are a clear radicalising influence, the fact they don't is staggering and says it all - as I've said before there's no Al Qaeda just different terrorist groups loosely associated with each other. Some of these groups are now being used as tools of western foreign policy and being radicalised by the Saudis who are exporting the Salafi brand of Islam to middle eastern theatres of conflict. America choose to turn a blind eye because in fact they condone these acts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy

quote:

There's clearly hatred between different sects of islam - my point is that the west is stoking these hatreds - classic divide and rule.

Sunni/Shia tension outdates the existence of the United States by over a thousand years, never mind it's foreign policy on the middle east! The fact that it has continued even while Iraq was occupied was less to do with the west's influence and more to do with extremists on both sides exploiting the country's instability to engage in a centuries-old feud. Likewise, the Sunni/Shia killings in Pakistan are largely reprisal attacks - no push from the west necessary. If anything, the hatred is largely being stoked by other states in the area.

That's true but there's no doubt tensions have been stoked by western powers in the region. And radicalisation is a relatively recent thing historically speaking.

quote:




Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation

Bin Laden's concern was fighting the enemies of "Islam" which, in his interpretation, meant his particular brand of jihadism. He called for the death of Americans and their allies which was everyone who didn't follow his extremism. Al Qaeda and its supporters have openly stated that Shi'sm is heresy and therefore the enemy of true Islam. This is how they justified their attacks on Shi'ite mosques.


But that's really connected to my point about Al Qaeda being a disparate network of terrorists. Bin Laden's primary target was the west, at no point did he himself sanction killing muslims. Other terrorists clearly took it upon themselves to interpret what Bin Laden said for their own ends. So there's no real over-arching terror network such as Al Qaeda working towards a common goal.

quote:

US history shows that they use groups within countries to commit atrocites and start conflicts within their people. It has never been proved who has been conducting bombing campaigns in Iraq - but if we go by past tactics emplyed by the CIA it's clear false-flag terror is something they have used before to weaken nations.

So, your argument is based on post hoc ergo propter hoc? Ignoring the fact that the attacks came following a call to arms against the shi'ites by Al-Zarqawi (sp?)? Or that Shia has been declared takfir which under shariah law is punishable by death?


What Al-Zarqawi that US invented uber-terrorist that was apparently behind all the attacks in Iraq? False flag terror at it's finest designed to instigate civil war in Iraq.

quote:




America should come down hard on Saudi Arabia because they are a clear radicalising influence, the fact they don't is staggering and says it all - as I've said before there's no Al Qaeda just different terrorist groups loosely associated with each other. Some of these groups are now being used as tools of western foreign policy and being radicalised by the Saudis who are exporting the Salafi brand of Islam to middle eastern theatres of conflict. America choose to turn a blind eye because in fact they condone these acts.

Saudi Arabia isn't a clear radicalising influence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.

Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.

Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.

Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.

Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.

Buckets of wrong on this post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Just seen some more of the Romney video. What in the name of shitting christ is he going on about when he starts saying if he were Iranian he'd bomb Chicago? Eastwood wants a slap for even being in the same room as this fucking clown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.

It went a bit beyond pontificating. And America hasn't taken any baton from Britain, both countries are running side by side when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. If anything, the US is at least held to account more often in these modern times than Britain ever were in the last couple of centuries of imperialism.

I'm all for reasonable criticism of their foreign policy (which, as you say, could be learnedbehaviour from their former rulers ) but let's not throw stones in glass houses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Just seen some more of the Romney video. What in the name of shitting christ is he going on about when he starts saying if he were Iranian he'd bomb Chicago? Eastwood wants a slap for even being in the same room as this fucking clown.

got a link?
That sounds ridiculously stupid from Romney.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
You have a nice face, Shifty. A face I would have a cup of tea with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No but if you've got ITV+1 it'll be on again in a minute.

quote:


Shifty Bench
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9551740/Mitt-Romney-struggles-to-keep-on-track-as-further-video-revelations-emerge.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire
The Americans went in first in those instances, and we followed like the little lapdogs we are. The world was a far different place when we had our Empire; now the Americans are the world's only superpower (possibly China and Russia are on the way back though), they throw their weight around and demand Middle Eastern countries conform to their ideas - its no wonder they are hated throughout that region.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

So you only saw some bits of it and it's his weakest work? Are you saying it's inaccurate?

quote:

What's hard to grasp is the fact that they are clearly involved in radicalising muslims outside of Saudi Arabia - and yet America do nothing. It's not just about an internal struggle by the Saudis, it's their direct impact on external terrorism.

quote:

The problem is you peddle is the standard line of those who back dictatorships. They are better off under one because they can't govern themselves, they'll turn instantly to terrorism etc. etc. It's codswallop.

quote:

The Saudi government are a US backed dictatorship involved in radicalising muslims. Does this not filter into your mind? What 'liberal' front are they trying to satisfy here, women can't even drive in this country alone.

quote:

The whole destabilisation of Syria smacks of foreign involvement. You saying these heavily armed rebels just popped up out of nowhere? And lest we forget Gaddafi was a tosser for decades while we sold him arms and extradited people to be tortured by him. Do these double standards not register with you.

quote:

So you are saying the Saudis have a right to send doctored Korans around the world and the Americans shouldn't give a shit despite them being involved in a war on terror?

quote:

Lol Assad's socialist secular government is their mortal enemy? Or just a non-compliant Arab country being knocked over like they've been knocked over in a variety of fashions over the past 100 years.

quote:

Were they? I thought Bin Laden's concern was fighting the west not killing muslims. Is there evidence of him ever wanting to stoke divisions between muslims? This might be another case of disparate terrorist groups being banded together as one all inclusive 'Al Qaeda' organisation

quote:

US history shows that they use groups within countries to commit atrocites and start conflicts within their people. It has never been proved who has been conducting bombing campaigns in Iraq - but if we go by past tactics emplyed by the CIA it's clear false-flag terror is something they have used before to weaken nations.

quote:

What Al-Zarqawi that US invented uber-terrorist that was apparently behind all the attacks in Iraq? False flag terror at it's finest designed to instigate civil war in Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saltire

America is such a despicable nation. I don't agree with what some of these numpty Islamists have done recently, but the way the Yanks carry on they do bring a lot of the stuff that happens upon them, and invariably, we are amongst the nations that have to help sort out the mess like the sycophants we are.

Ah yes. Britain is historically so well known for its benign and peaceful influence on the world.

I'm not saying in the past we have been innocent of pontificating to other countries and colonies of the way we think they should go about their business, but America has now took the baton on from us and telling the world how to run itself, when its own country is in a terrible state as it is.

Buckets of wrong on this post.

Then please elucidate.

quote:

America, for all its faults, is still far more diplomatic than the British empire ever was. In the Middle East, Africa, India, Europe and everywhere else. I'm not excusing the at times destructive and ill-thought-out foreign policy of the US but to claim that Britain weren't all that bad is absolutely ridiculous and untrue.

You're going to have to define 'first' for me too. Britain imposed a ruling elite in Iraq after World War I, carved the country up with no thought at all towards the different sections of society, plundered their oil reserves, occupied the country and brutally put down any uprisings. Sound familiar? This caused massive amounts of problems for Iraq once they achieved independence (a somewhat loose term), which still carry through to today. There's a hell of a lot of bad blood throughout history between the West and these countries in the Middle East; America are relative newcomers to wading around in it.

You could cynically argue that because of modern technology and a greater emphasis on global issues, it's much harder for governments to get away with the kinds of things they used to get away with. In which case I would cynically agree with you!