Fluke Skywalker
Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Deviation
quote:
Read the Wikileaks link I provided to Sharkboy - they are the no.1 financers of Islamic terrorism - they are categorically not being brought to book for this by the Americans.
Yes, that was also shown on The Daily Show and everything and it was big news, but they are also fighting it on other occasions. This is the thing, they stop diplomatic relationships and attack them, they lose an ally there, they don't and they have one. What do you want them to do? The two nations still cooperate and share information about the latest movements involving terrorism and prevent new terrorist movements and attacks. This is why Saudi Arabia is still has close diplomatic ties to the US and has had them till 1933. Do you know what conflicts happened that could have destroyed the relations between those two countries from that time?
They are not allies they are puppets!!! Who says anything about attacking them - it's about applying pressure. America have myriad ways to apply pressure to countries without resorting to attacking them. They choose not to why exactly? A regular oil supply?
quote:
The king invited the Americans there? Do you have any grasp whatsoever of US foreign policy or history in the middle east? They are puppets - they cannot kick the Americans out because then they risk being attacked.
Links. I mean proper links, not some conspiracy theory bullshit, that the King did not invite them there. I mean it. Links. Don't fucking give me examples of what Bahrain, Iraq or Syria, I want proper links dealing exclusively with Saudi Arabia.
Links about what? That the king invited them there? After the mass of evidence before you relating to western backed middle eastern dictators and how brutally they are deposed if they step out of line are you honestly so dumb to believe that US/Saudi is a 50-50 relationship between equals. They are puppets you fool!!! They know where they stand, and where their people stand. Arabs don't like Americans because of the way they are treated. To keep them down and to allow them to exploit resources the US back dictators. This is elementary stuff.
Also, you're the guy who didn't know who the Muslim Brotherhood were a year ago when I asked about them a year ago during the Egypt Revolt. Don't come telling anyone about not having a grasp of the Middle East, you're in is much as in fault of this as everyone here.
Why am I at fault? - I just state the truth - YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. And are the Muslim Brotherhood major players across the entire middle east, that's what we've I've been focusing on all this time not individual parties within countries
quote:
I've seen interviews with Shia muslims who preferred it under Saddam! Simply because while Saddam was a brutal dictator the level of killing, horror and lawlessness unleashed on Iraq after 9/11 far outstripped what he did to his people. That's how bad Iraq is now.
And I've seen polls that claim that they are happy, no matter how deep in shit they are, they not being under Saddam. Also, you might not realize since you believe everything better was under Saddam, but the man was also responsible for starting fights between his own people (the Marsh Arabs and Kurds to give an example), made a bloody brutal war agaisnt Iran and also committed various acts of ethnic cleansing. There's a reason the Peshmegerians (sp?) joined forces with the Americans.
What the Iraqis have gained is freedom at a price that none of them would have been willing to pay. The violent and bloody deaths of their friends and loved ones. A people left to grieve in freedom. Do you remember the bomb attacks that hit us on 7/7 and the devastating way it affected the nation. Iraq has seen attacks of that nature EVERY WEEK FOR A DECADE. Damn right it's worse off now than it was under Saddam.
Iraq is worse now, you've had Shiite insurgences, from the Arabic side, money being poured into Sunni groups, Turkey coming in due to the Kurdish problem and Islamic extremists taking power, but at least it isn't Hussien and for some, that is consolation. I don't deny he was control and stability in the region, but then that truly becomes keeping a dictator because you think that the people can't govern themselves.
So you agree with me? It's the response of the pro-Iraq war western commentator who defends the horrific outcome of Iraq that they are better off. Safe in the knowledge that their families haven't been blown to smithereens, kidnapped, shot dead, died due to lack to medical care - free to pat themselves on the back at a job well done as the cross hairs move elsewhere.
quote:
No.1 financiers of islamic radicalistion on the planet. Damn right they are playing a double game and America know all about it of course because the Saudis are their puppets.
I am not repeating this. Also, if they're merely puppets, they're doing a terrible job at controlling them.
That's what this whole argument has been about - the fact that the Americans fighting this whole civilisation saving war on terror choose not to move against one of the primary causes of radicalisation. Why do you think this is?
I'm saying you're being a fool if you think that an element of double standards doesn't get poured into this. If you think that being nice and consistent works then you have idea how these diplomatic relations work. You think other countries on Earth are somehow nicer? That we should be nicer and more consistent just for the sake of it? That's silly.
What because double standards and hypocrisy are a part of international affairs we should just accept it? What kind of argument is that?
I mean, some of the things America did in South America are disgusting, but then again, you have to when you're a massive power and fighting another massive power. You do have to ally yourself with bastards like Pinochet (who I detest) when you two have a common enemy, even if people like Pinochet can occasionally turn back on your help.
So basically you agree with backing brutal dictatorships. That says it all really.
quote:
They are not an ally, Israel are an ally in the region - the Saudis are puppets. Like Saddam and Mubarak for example were 'allies' for decades, even Gaddafi. The Pakistani army has lost thousands of soldiers fighting terrorism by the way including high ranking Generals - doesn't really fit with your statement about them having a similar ideology with fundamentalists. Comparing the Saudis with Pakistan is plainly wrong apart from their government being puppets of America.
Sure they are, they are puppets. Nothing else. Poor Saudis. Let's cry them a river.
You don't even know what your arguing about here 
Also, you do realize they were the one to train the Taliban right? The ones who feed terrorism into Kashmir or Afghanistan. The ones who hid Osama bin Laden. The ones who have aided terror groups make attacks in India. General Zia-ul-Haq ring a bell? The man who persecuted religious minorities and started imposing Sharia? The Haqqani network? They're religiously conservative as fuck. It's totally bloody similar, only Pakistan has the terrorists right close to its border so the attacks are bigger. Pakistan still has some vicious proxies.
What Pakistan are printing doctored Korans and pumping cash into global terror like the Saudis? Zia Ul Haq was backed by the west by the way - that's a suprise. And Pakistan has not only seen thousands of soldiers killed but tens of thousands of civilians by terrorism. There's definately very dodgy elements there but they are catergorically not in the same leage as Saudi Arabia in terms of supplying cash. And the ISI have been connected to the CIA since the Afghan war lest we forget.
The problem with that both countries is the uneven record. They do fight and offer information, the also support them. Also, Israel is still not the best ally. Everyone in the region, maybe other than Egypt, doesn't like them, so you do need other allies there.
Israel are America's main ally in the middle east that's plainly obvious, what the hell are you talking about?
quote:
The protests are part of the arab spring, arming people within a country and flooding them with foreign fighters is not part of the arab spring, it's an attempt by Western powers to knock off a non-compliant dictatorship. Mubarak was knocked off by the Egyptian people, it's interesting that America offered them no assistance though - that's because Mubarak was their man as was Ben Ali.
Again, Gaddafhi, pissed off everyone. From the Libyans, to the Islamic organizations to his neighbours to Europe (do I have to remind that Obama was not keen in entering this war, he only entered due to France and the UK). Also, who is arming them? The terrorist groups? The West? Both did in Libya when Gaddafhi didn't go down and started shooting people. You seem keen to take a dictator's side here. Oh, they're ok when they're non-compliant.
What I've always attempted to highlight is the way the US and other western nations back dictators when it's necessary, knock them off when they are no longer useful/ compliant. It's disgusting because it kills a lot of people - that's not the same as supporting dictatorships.
Still, why is Libyan-revolt Western made and not Ben Ali and Mubarak? Especially since they followed each and were born once greater confidence was shown. Actually, why shouldn't the West have intervened in Libya? Because it would be bad and sad that a non-compliant dictator got ousted?
Why shouldn't the west have intefered in the whole of the middle east is what you should really be asking because that's what it all ultimately boils down to. Dictators, wars, violence, dead people. But you think it's ok to back dictatorships don't you?
The Western countries still had good ties with Gaddafhi and his bastard of a son till the Civil War started as well.
quote:
What's that got to do with what I said in the quote above?
Everything, since you said bin Laden didn't want to kill Muslims and that's pretty much what he did.
No I said I didn't believe Al Qaeda existed in the sense people would like to have us believe. Bin Laden was fighting a war against the west, some terrorists interpreted it as killing infidels which could include muslims of other sects = no real controlling hierachy whatsoever, disparate terrorist groups loosely connected doing what the hell they want.
quote:
You're clearly an expert on middle eastern history aren't you
Hey, at least I'm not the one going "Oh it would be ok and fine if the West didn't intervene". It's not as if the Arabs and the Persians don't have a history of detesting each other, even pre-Islam. Or that there are not religious, ethnic groups who don't like each other even within Syria.
It's weird these ethnic groups weren't massacring each other until the west started arming the rebels and kicked off a civil war.
quote:
There's been a ton of speculation about who he was, what he actually did, how much of the bombing campaigns in Iraq were actually down to him or whether he was made up to be this super-terrorist to allow an extension of the occupation in Iraq.
Of course he bloody exists. Him being made up is akin to saying Gaddafhi or Elvis Presly are still alive. I bet they made up Mullah Omar too.
Al Zarqawi was a useful bogeyman to provide cover for the US destabilisation of Iraq.
|
Printable Version
RE: The Race for the White House - 2008 Election - 
Mod Candidate 2013
Sorry that was a cheap shot 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread