Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on June 18, 2004, 10:59:36 AM
-
This is a rather long but interesting read. I suspect there will be a few of the more interested/serious posters that may read it all and choose to engage in a discussion about the presentation.
And there'll be the drive-bys, of course.
Enjoy!
*********
Professor HAIM HARARI, a theoretical physicist, is the Chair, Davidson Institute of Science Education, and Former President, from 1988 to 2001, of the Weizmann Institute of Science.
During his years as President of the Institute, it entered numerous new scientific fields and projects, built 47 new buildings, raised one Billion Dollars in philanthropic money, hired more than half of its current tenured Professors and became one of the highest royalty-earning academic organizations in the world.
Throughout all his adult life, he has made major contributions to three different fields: Particle Physics Research on the international scene, Science Education in the Israeli school system and Science Administration and Policy Making.
A View from the Eye of the Storm Talk delivered by Haim Harari at a meeting of the International Advisory Board of a large multi-national corporation, April, 2004
As you know, I usually provide the scientific and technological "entertainment" in our meetings, but, on this occasion, our Chairman suggested that I present my own personal view on events in the part of the world from which I come. I have never been and I will never be a Government official and I have no privileged information. My perspective is entirely based on what I see, on what I read and on the fact that my family has lived in this region for almost 200 years. You may regard my views as those of the proverbial taxi driver, which you are supposed to question, when you visit a country.
I could have shared with you some fascinating facts and some personal thoughts about the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, I will touch upon it only in passing. I prefer to devote most of my remarks to the broader picture of the region and its place in world events. I refer to the entire area between Pakistan and Morocco, which is predominantly Arab, predominantly Moslem, but includes many non-Arab and also significant non-Moslem minorities.
Why do I put aside Israel and its own immediate neighborhood? Because Israel and any problems related to it, in spite of what you might read or hear in the world media, is not the central issue, and has never been the central issue in the upheaval in the region. Yes, there is a 100 year-old Israeli-Arab conflict, but it is not where the main show is. The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel. The mass murder happening right now in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel. The frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel. Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel. Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60's because of Israel. Assad the Father did not kill tens of thousands of his own citizens in one week in El Hamma in Syria because of Israel. The Taliban control of Afghanistan and the civil war there had nothing to do with Israel. The Libyan blowing up of the Pan-Am flight had nothing to do with Israel, and I could go on and on and on.
The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine would have existed for 100 years. The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the EU before its expansion. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe. These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone. Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago. Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission. According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates. The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.
It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented breeding ground for cruel dictators, terror networks, fanaticism, incitement, suicide murders and general decline. It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything, except themselves.
-
Do I say all of this with the satisfaction of someone discussing the failings of his enemies? On the contrary, I firmly believe that the world would have been a much better place and my own neighborhood would have been much more pleasant and peaceful, if things were different.
I should also say a word about the millions of decent, honest, good people who are either devout Moslems or are not very religious but grew up in Moslem families. They are double victims of an outside world, which now develops Islamophobia and of their own environment, which breaks their heart by being totally dysfunctional. The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement but they also do not stand up against it. They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
The events of the last few years have amplified four issues, which have always existed, but have never been as rampant as in the present upheaval in the region. These are the four main pillars of the current World Conflict, or perhaps we should already refer to it as "the undeclared World War III". I have no better name for the present situation. A few more years may pass before everybody acknowledges that it is a World War, but we are already well into it.
The first element is the suicide murder. Suicide murders are not a new invention but they have been made popular, if I may use this expression, only lately. Even after September 11, it seems that most of the Western World does not yet understand this weapon. It is a very potent psychological weapon. Its real direct impact is relatively minor. The total number of casualties from hundreds of suicide murders within Israel in the last three years is much smaller than those due to car accidents. September 11 was quantitatively much less lethal than many earthquakes. More people die from AIDS in one day in Africa than all the Russians who died in the hands of Chechnya-based Moslem suicide murderers since that conflict started. Saddam killed every month more people than all those who died from suicide murders since the Coalition occupation of Iraq.
So what is all the fuss about suicide killings? It creates headlines. It is spectacular. It is frightening. It is a very cruel death with bodies dismembered and horrible severe lifelong injuries to many of the wounded. It is always shown on television in great detail. One such murder, with the help of hysterical media coverage, can destroy the tourism industry of a country for quite a while, as it did in Bali and in Turkey.
But the real fear comes from the undisputed fact that no defense and no preventive measures can succeed against a determined suicide murderer. This has not yet penetrated the thinking of the Western World. The U.S. and Europe are constantly improving their defense against the last murder, not the next one. We may arrange for the best airport security in the world.. But if you want to murder by suicide, you do not have to board a plane in order to explode yourself and kill many people. Who could stop a suicide murder in the midst of the crowded line waiting to be checked by the airport metal detector? How about the lines to the check-in counters in a busy travel period? Put a metal detector in front of every train station in Spain and the terrorists will get the buses. Protect the buses and they will explode in movie theaters, concert halls, supermarkets, shopping malls, schools and hospitals. Put guards in front of every concert hall and there will always be a line of people to be checked by the guards and this line will be the target, not to speak of killing the guards themselves. You can somewhat reduce your vulnerability by preventive and defensive measures and by strict border controls but not eliminate it and definitely not win the war in a defensive way. And it is a war!
What is behind the suicide murders? Money, power and cold-blooded murderous incitement, nothing else. It has nothing to do with true fanatic religious beliefs. No Moslem preacher has ever blown himself up. No son of an Arab politician or religious leader has ever blown himself. No relative of anyone influential has done it. Wouldn't you expect some of the religious leaders to do it themselves, or to talk their sons into doing it, if this is truly a supreme act of religious fervor? Aren't they interested in the benefits of going to Heaven? Instead, they send outcast women, naïve children, retarded people and young incited hotheads. They promise them the delights, mostly sexual, of the next world, and pay their families handsomely after the supreme act is performed and enough innocent people are dead.
Suicide murders also have nothing to do with poverty and despair. The poorest region in the world, by far, is Africa. It never happens there. There are numerous desperate people in the world, in different cultures, countries and continents. Desperation does not provide anyone with explosives, reconnaissance and transportation. There was certainly more despair in Saddam's Iraq then in Paul Bremmer's Iraq, and no one exploded himself. A suicide murder is simply a horrible, vicious weapon of cruel, inhuman, cynical, well-funded terrorists, with no regard to human life, including the life of their fellow countrymen, but with very high regard to their own affluent well-being and their hunger for power.
The only way to fight this new "popular" weapon is identical to the only way in which you fight organized crime or pirates on the high seas: the offensive way. Like in the case of organized crime, it is crucial that the forces on the offensive be united and it is crucial to reach the top of the crime pyramid. You cannot eliminate organized crime by arresting the little drug dealer in the street corner. You must go after the head of the "Family".
If part of the public supports it, others tolerate it, many are afraid of it and some try to explain it away by poverty or by a miserable childhood, organized crime will thrive and so will terrorism. The United States understands this now, after September 11. Russia is beginning to understand it. Turkey understands it well. I am very much afraid that most of Europe still does not understand it. Unfortunately, it seems that Europe will understand it only after suicide murders will arrive in Europe in a big way. In my humble opinion, this will definitely happen. The Spanish trains and the Istanbul bombings are only the beginning. The unity of the Civilized World in fighting this horror is absolutely indispensable. Until Europe wakes up, this unity will not be achieved.
The second ingredient is words, more precisely lies. Words can be lethal. They kill people. It is often said that politicians, diplomats and perhaps also lawyers and business people must sometimes lie, as part of their professional life. But the norms of politics and diplomacy are childish, in comparison with the level of incitement and total absolute deliberate fabrications, which have reached new heights in the region we are talking about. An incredible number of people in the Arab world believe that September 11 never happened, or was an American provocation or, even better, a Jewish plot.
You all remember the Iraqi Minister of Information, Mr. Mouhamad Said al-Sahaf and his press conferences when the US forces were already inside Baghdad. Disinformation at time of war is an accepted tactic. But to stand, day after day, and to make such preposterous statements, known to everybody to be lies, without even being ridiculed in your own milieu, can only happen in this region. Mr. Sahaf eventually became a popular icon as a court jester, but this did not stop some allegedly respectable newspapers from giving him equal time. It also does not prevent the Western press from giving credence, every day, even now, to similar liars. After all, if you want to be an antisemite, there are subtle ways of doing it. You do not have to claim that the holocaust never happened and that the Jewish temple in Jerusalem never existed. But millions of Moslems are told by their leaders that this is the case. When these same leaders make other statements, the Western media report them as if they could be true.
It is a daily occurrence that the same people, who finance, arm and dispatch suicide murderers, condemn the act in English in front of western TV cameras, talking to a world audience, which even partly believes them. It is a daily routine to hear the same leader making opposite statements in Arabic to his people and in English to the rest of the world. Incitement by Arab TV, accompanied by horror pictures of mutilated bodies, has become a powerful weapon of those who lie, distort and want to destroy everything. Little children are raised on deep hatred and on admiration of so-called martyrs, and the Western World does not notice it because its own TV sets are mostly tuned to soap operas and game shows. I recommend to you, even though most of you do not understand Arabic, to watch Al Jazeera, from time to time. You will not believe your own eyes.
-
But words also work in other ways, more subtle. A demonstration in Berlin, carrying banners supporting Saddam's regime and featuring three-year old babies dressed as suicide murderers, is defined by the press and by political leaders as a "peace demonstration". You may support or oppose the Iraq war, but to refer to fans of Saddam, Arafat or Bin Laden as peace activists is a bit too much. A woman walks into an Israeli restaurant in mid-day, eats, observes families with old people and children eating their lunch in the adjacent tables and pays the bill. She then blows herself up, killing 20 people, including many children, with heads and arms rolling around in the restaurant. She is called "martyr" by several Arab leaders and "activist" by the European press. Dignitaries condemn the act but visit her bereaved family and the money flows.
There is a new game in town: The actual murderer is called "the military wing", the one who pays him, equips him and sends him is now called "the political wing" and the head of the operation is called the "spiritual leader". There are numerous other examples of such Orwellian nomenclature, used every day not only by terror chiefs but also by Western media. These words are much more dangerous than many people realize. They provide an emotional infrastructure for atrocities. It was Joseph Goebels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. He is now being outperformed by his successors.
The third aspect is money. Huge amounts of money, which could have solved many social problems in this dysfunctional part of the world, are channeled into three concentric spheres supporting death and murder. In the inner circle are the terrorists themselves. The money funds their travel, explosives, hideouts and permanent search for soft vulnerable targets. They are surrounded by a second wider circle of direct supporters, planners, commanders, preachers, all of whom make a living, usually a very comfortable living, by serving as terror infrastructure. Finally, we find the third circle of so-called religious, educational and welfare organizations, which actually do some good, feed the hungry and provide some schooling, but brainwash a new generation with hatred, lies and ignorance. This circle operates mostly through mosques, madrasas and other religious establishments but also through inciting electronic and printed media. It is this circle that makes sure that women remain inferior, that democracy is unthinkable and that exposure to the outside world is minimal. It is also that circle that leads the way in blaming everybody outside the Moslem world, for the miseries of the region.
Figuratively speaking, this outer circle is the guardian, which makes sure that the people look and listen inwards to the inner circle of terror and incitement, rather than to the world outside. Some parts of this same outer circle actually operate as a result of fear from, or blackmail by, the inner circles. The horrifying added factor is the high birth rate. Half of the population of the Arab world is under the age of 20, the most receptive age to incitement, guaranteeing two more generations of blind hatred.
Of the three circles described above, the inner circles are primarily financed by terrorist states like Iran and Syria, until recently also by Iraq and Libya and earlier also by some of the Communist regimes. These states, as well as the Palestinian Authority, are the safe havens of the wholesale murder vendors. The outer circle is largely financed by Saudi Arabia, but also by donations from certain Moslem communities in the United States and Europe and, to a smaller extent, by donations of European Governments to various NGO's and by certain United Nations organizations, whose goals may be noble, but they are infested and exploited by agents of the outer circle. The Saudi regime, of course, will be the next victim of major terror, when the inner circle will explode into the outer circle. The Saudis are beginning to understand it, but they fight the inner circles, while still financing the infrastructure at the outer circle.?
Some of the leaders of these various circles live very comfortably on their loot. You meet their children in the best private schools in Europe, not in the training camps of suicide murderers. The Jihad "soldiers" join packaged death tours to Iraq and other hotspots, while some of their leaders ski in Switzerland. Mrs. Arafat, who lives in Paris with her daughter, receives tens of thousands Dollars per month from the allegedly bankrupt Palestinian Authority while a typical local ringleader of the Al-Aksa brigade, reporting to Arafat, receives only a cash payment of a couple of hundred dollars, for performing murders at the retail level.?
The fourth element of the current world conflict is the total breaking of all laws. The civilized world believes in democracy, the rule of law, including international law, human rights, free speech and free press, among other liberties. There are naïve old-fashioned habits such as respecting religious sites and symbols, not using ambulances and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human bombs. Never in history, not even in the Nazi period, was there such total disregard of all of the above as we observe now. Every student of political science debates how you prevent an anti-democratic force from winning a democratic election and abolishing democracy. Other aspects of a civilized society must also have limitations. Can a policeman open fire on someone trying to kill him? Can a government listen to phone conversations of terrorists and drug dealers? Does free speech protects you when you shout "fire" in a crowded theater? Should there be death penalty, for deliberate multiple murders? These are the old-fashioned dilemmas. But now we have an entire new set.
Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that someone would openly stay in a well-known address in Teheran, hosted by the Iranian Government and financed by it, executing one atrocity after another in Spain or in France, killing hundreds of innocent people, accepting responsibility for the crimes, promising in public TV interviews to do more of the same, while the Government of Iran issues public condemnations of his acts but continues to host him, invite him to official functions and treat him as a great dignitary. I leave it to you as homework to figure out what Spain or France would have done, in such a situation.
The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment. It is trying to play ice hockey by sending a ballerina ice-skater into the rink or to knock out a heavyweight boxer by a chess player. In the same way that no country has a law against cannibals eating its prime minister, because such an act is unthinkable, international law does not address killers shooting from hospitals, mosques and ambulances, while being protected by their Government or society. International law does not know how to handle someone who sends children to throw stones, stands behind them and shoots with immunity and cannot be arrested because he is sheltered by a Government. International law does not know how to deal with a leader of murderers who is royally and comfortably hosted by a country, which pretends to condemn his acts or just claims to be too weak to arrest him. The amazing thing is that all of these crooks demand protection under international law and define all those who attack them as war criminals, with some Western media repeating the allegations. The good news is that all of this is temporary, because the evolution of international law has always adapted itself to reality. The punishment for suicide murder should be death or arrest before the murder, not during and not after. After every world war, the rules of international law have changed and the same will happen after the present one. But during the twilight zone, a lot of harm can be done.
The picture I described here is not pretty. What can we do about it? In the short run, only fight and win. In the long run ? only educate the next generation and open it to the world. The inner circles can and must be destroyed by force. The outer circle cannot be eliminated by force. Here we need financial starvation of the organizing elite, more power to women, more education, counter propaganda, boycott whenever feasible and access to Western media, internet and the international scene. Above all, we need a total absolute unity and determination of the civilized world against all three circles of evil.
-
Allow me, for a moment, to depart from my alleged role as a taxi driver and return to science. When you have a malignant tumor, you may remove the tumor itself surgically. You may also starve it by preventing new blood from reaching it from other parts of the body, thereby preventing new "supplies" from expanding the tumor. If you want to be sure, it is best to do both.
But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to realize that you are in a war, and this may take Europe a few more years. In order to win, it is necessary to first eliminate the terrorist regimes, so that no Government in the world will serve as a safe haven for these people. I do not want to comment here on whether the American-led attack on Iraq was justified from the point of view of weapons of mass destruction or any other pre-war argument, but I can look at the post-war map of Western Asia. Now that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian colony. Perhaps Sudan should be added to the list. As a result of the conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Iran and Syria are now totally surrounded by territories unfriendly to them. Iran is encircled by Afghanistan, by the Gulf States, Iraq and the Moslem republics of the former Soviet Union. Syria is surrounded by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. This is a significant strategic change and it applies strong pressure on the terrorist countries. It is not surprising that Iran is so active in trying to incite a Shiite uprising in Iraq. I do not know if the American plan was actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is the resulting situation.???
In my humble opinion, the number one danger to the world today is Iran and its regime. It definitely has ambitions to rule vast areas and to expand in all directions. It has an ideology, which claims supremacy over Western culture. It is ruthless. It has proven that it can execute elaborate terrorist acts without leaving too many traces, using Iranian Embassies.. It is clearly trying to develop Nuclear Weapons. Its so-called moderates and conservatives play their own virtuoso version of the "good-cop versus bad-cop" game. Iran sponsors Syrian terrorism, it is certainly behind much of the action in Iraq, it is fully funding the Hizbulla and, through it, the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it performed acts of terror at least in Europe and in South America and probably also in Uzbekhistan and Saudi Arabia and it truly leads a multi-national terror consortium, which includes, as minor players, Syria, Lebanon and certain Shiite elements in Iraq. Nevertheless, most European countries still trade with Iran, try to appease it and refuse to read the clear signals.
In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the financial resources of the terror conglomerate. It is pointless to try to understand the subtle differences between the Sunni terror of Al Qaida and Hamas and the Shiite terror of Hizbulla, Sadr and other Iranian inspired enterprises. When it serves their business needs, all of them collaborate beautifully.
It is crucial to stop Saudi and other financial support of the outer circle, which is the fertile breeding ground of terror. It is important to monitor all donations from the Western World to Islamic organizations, to monitor the finances of international relief organizations and to react with forceful economic measures to any small sign of financial aid to any of the three circles of terrorism. It is also important to act decisively against the campaign of lies and fabrications and to monitor those Western media who collaborate with it out of naivety, financial interests or ignorance.
Above all, never surrender to terror. No one will ever know whether the recent elections in Spain would have yielded a different result, if not for the train bombings a few days earlier. But it really does not matter. What matters is that the terrorists believe that they caused the result and that they won by driving Spain out of Iraq. The Spanish story will surely end up being extremely costly to other European countries, including France, who is now expelling inciting preachers and forbidding veils and including others who sent troops to Iraq. In the long run, Spain itself will pay even more.
Is the solution a democratic Arab world? If by democracy we mean free elections but also free press, free speech, a functioning judicial system, civil liberties, equality to women, free international travel, exposure to international media and ideas, laws against racial incitement and against defamation, and avoidance of lawless behavior regarding hospitals, places of worship and children, then yes, democracy is the solution. If democracy is just free elections, it is likely that the most fanatic regime will be elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the most inflammatory. We have seen it already in Algeria and, to a certain extent, in Turkey. It will happen again, if the ground is not prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.
I have no doubt that the civilized world will prevail. But the longer it takes us to understand the new landscape of this war, the more costly and painful the victory will be. Europe, more than any other region, is the key. Its understandable recoil from wars, following the horrors of World War II, may cost thousands of additional innocent lives, before the tide will turn.
-
But...but...but.. Haliburton... Bosh... Arab Street...
-
It is a good read, and a very good take on the situation. Sadly, it illustrates the difficulties ahead.
-
Good read.
Thanks for posting, Toad.
Ravs
-
i'll say this:
It is fair to say that this creates
powerful
The problem is that
yep right on
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that someone would openly
but i dont want to discuss
-
Thanks Toad.
-
Good read, thanks Toad. I might take exception with him on one point. He granted money/power the chief motivator among terrorist leaders. I believe some if not many of them to be truly motivated by their religous beliefs.
-
Yep... good stuff.
Sooo.... how many troops do we still have next door to Iran?
-
He is a very eloquent man. But he really mixes and matches his anologies.
What do you think Toad?
-
Good read Toad, and thanks.
It is scary in a sense, and it looks like we have a long hard road ahead and many people are going to die.
-
Toad, do you have that linked anyhwere? I'd like to finish reading it, but with the board going down in a little while, I'm affraid I wont be able to revisit.
[edit] Never mind, looks like we're back already!
-Sik
-
What do I think?
I think he makes some very interesting and depressing points. Perhaps the "scariest" one for me was one many may have overlooked.
According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates
I think that says a whole lot. Not too interested in what's going on in the world, are they? Reminds me of the old saw about "those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it."
As I said, I found it very interesting. While I haven't really made up my mind and continue to read in this area, I am beginning to move towards his statement that this is indeed a "world war". It's not what we want, it's apparently what they want and have already begun.
-
First of all. In fairness the thread should be called "Through the crosshairs of the rifle"
This guy is talking about his enemies.
Second. his statement about Israel having nothing to do with it is very very dishonest. 90% of his examples are not typical examples of arab behavior but examples of Palistinian behavior vs the Isreali occupation.
I have been to Isreal. It is an amazing place so out of phase with all arround it, Irrigated, educated, modern. All arround it is barren 14 century ruble it seems. But Isreal is not some inocent victim of the situation in the middle east. They are very very much the victims of thier own actions. They chose to expand thier borders at the expense of the allready once deported palistinians. The palistinian uprising is not a protest agianst the existance of the state of isreal. It is a protest against its expansion to the detrement of the Palistinians and the police state that the Isrealis set up to perpetuate that expansion.
In leaving all that out this man is being very dishonest. A simularly elequent palistinians talker could have refruted the whole thing.
His disertation on suicide bombing was interesting in that all countries soldiers are drawn from the poor that dont benifit from the wars they fight. Dous he think Arabs invented that? Denied any kind of real weapons by total isreali police state boycot what does he think that Palistinians would do? Sorti in thier Hinds to take on the Isreali Apaches? If someone would arm them like the Americans have armed the Isrealis I bet they would be happy to fight that way. But they cant. They have to fight with what they can carry in thier pockets.
I dont expect this guy to love them. Nor do I expect him to make a case for genocide of the whole arab race.
-
I think you're fixated on the Arab/Israeli aspect of this as written by a Jew.
What's your take on these situations then? How does Israel figure into each of them?
The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel.
The mass murder happening right now in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel.
The frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel.
Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel.
Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60's because of Israel.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
First of all. In fairness the thread should be called "Through the crosshairs of the rifle"
This guy is talking about his enemies.
Second. his statement about Israel having nothing to do with it is very very dishonest. 90% of his examples are not typical examples of arab behavior but examples of Palistinian behavior vs the Isreali occupation.
I have been to Isreal. It is an amazing place so out of phase with all arround it, Irrigated, educated, modern. All arround it is barren 14 century ruble it seems. But Isreal is not some inocent victim of the situation in the middle east. They are very very much the victims of thier own actions. They chose to expand thier borders at the expense of the allready once deported palistinians. The palistinian uprising is not a protest agianst the existance of the state of isreal. It is a protest against its expansion to the detrement of the Palistinians and the police state that the Isrealis set up to perpetuate that expansion.
In leaving all that out this man is being very dishonest. A simularly elequent palistinians talker could have refruted the whole thing.
His disertation on suicide bombing was interesting in that all countries soldiers are drawn from the poor that dont benifit from the wars they fight. Dous he think Arabs invented that? Denied any kind of real weapons by total isreali police state boycot what does he think that Palistinians would do? Sorti in thier Hinds to take on the Isreali Apaches? If someone would arm them like the Americans have armed the Isrealis I bet they would be happy to fight that way. But they cant. They have to fight with what they can carry in thier pockets.
I dont expect this guy to love them. Nor do I expect him to make a case for genocide of the whole arab race.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl you are amazing! are you a muslim? The man is spot on.
-
Pongo, in fairness, I don't think he was making a case for the genocide of the Arabs.
I think the core points of his piece are that
(1) Arabs leaders (be they religious or political) who exhort their people to kill others, don't take those risks themselves. Well, OK, but which leaders do? (Isn't there a bit in the trailer of Fareinheit 9/11 in which Michael Moore asks Senators to get their kids to join up to go to Iraq?). I would really love to see the day when political leaders who saw fit to declare wars were actively involved in the fighting.
(2) Arab states have not made the most of their economic opportunities. It's a fact of life that large corporations in a capitalist system are going to screw states who don't have the educational wherewithall to defend themselves. But take a look at the far east. They came off the blocks from pretty much a standing start after WW2 and they are doing pretty well. Why can't Arab countries emulate them?
(3) Arabs actually spend a large amount of their time and energy fighting amongst themselves. Well....they do. That sort of behaviour is not going to improve their economies any. I really wonder, whether they hate the west simply because they lack material wealth, which they are quite capable of obtaining if they set their minds to it.
As much as I feel for the plight of the Palestinians, and as much as I feel that the Israelis could help them by letting them take an active part in their economy, I think this chap has some fairly sound arguments about the rest of the Arab world.
I think his point about trying to impose 'instant democracies' in countries which don't have the middle class to support it, is spot on.
Ravs
-
I didnt say he didnt have good points. But he is not presenting the whole point. Of the document what % is really talking about the palistinian uprising? I just read it quickly but I felt he started talking about one thing. Arabs and thier goverments(or lack of them) and he switched to another. Very particular to the situation in isreal.
In general he wants to say
None of this has anything to do with isreal. Now im going to talk in a veiled way about things that have only happend in isreal vs the palisitnians...and try to maintain the thread that it has nothing to do with isreal.
But most of the examples he gave were palistinian exampels and they have alot to do with isreal. So he was being very elequently dishonest.
Dont you see that Toad? He baited and switched. And then he tried to build a parallelism between Iraq and Palistine. Convientent to a US audience.
-
Oh jeez.
Now I've got to go and read the bloody thing over again.
Thanks Pongo
Ravs :)
-
You need to read it slower, Pongo.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think you're fixated on the Arab/Israeli aspect of this as written by a Jew.
What's your take on these situations then? How does Israel figure into each of them?
I didnt ask you what you thought of my opinion. I asked you what you thought of his.
"
The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel.
The mass murder happening right now in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel. No idea.
The frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel. Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel. No he did so cause his mutual ally with the Iraqis the US said he could.
Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60's because of Israel.
"
So the guy lists all these horrible things that the arabs have done that didnt involve isreal. Great.
Then he talks about issue after issue that occured in palistine vs the Isrealies. As if those acts in Palistine do not have to do with Isreal. But they do. They are a result of aggressive Isreali expansion into Palistinian lands. Period. Anyone that doesnt know that is an idiot. The Isrealis know it. This guys clever dissertation that avoids that issue does so at the risk of being dishonest.
Notice that he mentions the security issues the Turks have. Do you know that the Turks have commited near genocide vs thier Kurdish population? He doesnt mention that. Wonder why. Cause they are politically the closest muslim nation to Isreal maybe?
The Isralies should not cast stones about WMD. You know what I mean Toad? There is no reason to go to Iran or Iraq to find countries that have WMD in violation to proliferation aggreements. Right?
So now I come off sounding anti isreali. If your simple I guess I am. But in fact I just think they are better served by honesty then lies and evading thier responsiblity for why they are in the situation they are in. They could have chosen peace or war many times in the last 30 years. And they have chosen war.
He lists what the arabs have "done" without listing what has been "done" to them. And I am not talking in the stone age here. I am talking in the last century. The first use of poison gas in the area was not by Iraq or Egypt. It was by the RAF vs Iraq independence movements. Egypt was calously invaded by France, England and Isreal in 56. The democratic movements in Iran was destroyed by the US goverment arround the same time.
So to paraphrase the ariticle. The idea that the major problem is that the arabs are "bad" which is in effect what he says. Is silly.
-
He doesn't say they are bad, he says they are backwards, which they are.
-
I think you need to read it rather than skim it.
I read it all and I don't see where he talks predominantly about the Palestinians. Not at all. If you just visually grabbed "suicide bomber" and immediately translated it to "Palestinians" I can see where you might think that but in reality that's NOT what he said. He's talking about the method of fighting that is now applied world wide.
I think he keeps it pretty general and it's a good overview.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
First of all. In fairness the thread should be called "Through the crosshairs of the rifle"
This guy is talking about his enemies.
Second. his statement about Israel having nothing to do with it is very very dishonest. 90% of his examples are not typical examples of arab behavior but examples of Palistinian behavior vs the Isreali occupation.
I have been to Isreal. It is an amazing place so out of phase with all arround it, Irrigated, educated, modern. All arround it is barren 14 century ruble it seems. But Isreal is not some inocent victim of the situation in the middle east. They are very very much the victims of thier own actions. They chose to expand thier borders at the expense of the allready once deported palistinians. The palistinian uprising is not a protest agianst the existance of the state of isreal. It is a protest against its expansion to the detrement of the Palistinians and the police state that the Isrealis set up to perpetuate that expansion.
In leaving all that out this man is being very dishonest. A simularly elequent palistinians talker could have refruted the whole thing.
His disertation on suicide bombing was interesting in that all countries soldiers are drawn from the poor that dont benifit from the wars they fight. Dous he think Arabs invented that? Denied any kind of real weapons by total isreali police state boycot what does he think that Palistinians would do? Sorti in thier Hinds to take on the Isreali Apaches? If someone would arm them like the Americans have armed the Isrealis I bet they would be happy to fight that way. But they cant. They have to fight with what they can carry in thier pockets.
I dont expect this guy to love them. Nor do I expect him to make a case for genocide of the whole arab race.
Pongo-
You do realize that the "Expansion" of Israeli territories occurred when Israel captured these lands after being attacked by Arab states, don't you?
You do realize that 87% of the land once called Palestine is now part of Jordan. The other 13% is Israel.
You realize that by giving back some of the lands Israel now occupies, it would put major Israeli cities in range of Palestinian Atillery, right?
You do realize that if the Arab world was so worried about the Palestinian Refugee problem, they would not have blocked them from entering countries like Jordan, etc.
Please check into these facts and respond when able.
-
Toad-
Excellent post. Though along with Pongo, I can see the authors bias, it does not detract from the facts he put forth.
-
Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.
It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented breeding ground for cruel dictators, terror networks, fanaticism, incitement, suicide murders and general decline. It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything, except themselves.
The Middle East hasn't developed like other regions of the world. The oil meant corrupt regimes were propped up by the west (principally America). Islam isn't the reason things are so badly wrong in the region, the Arabs see Islam as the alternative to what they have now.
Islam is to an Arab now what communism was to Russians in 1916.
It's an alternative to the corruption and oppresive rule of men who the man on the street thinks have sold out to the Americans.
Suicide murders are not a new invention but they have been made popular, if I may use this expression, only lately.
It depends how he's defining lately. Suicide murders were popularised by the (Hindu) Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, who carried out hundreds of such attacks since the 80s.
Finally, we find the third circle of so-called religious, educational and welfare organizations, which actually do some good, feed the hungry and provide some schooling, but brainwash a new generation with hatred, lies and ignorance. This circle operates mostly through mosques, madrasas and other religious establishments but also through inciting electronic and printed media. It is this circle that makes sure that women remain inferior, that democracy is unthinkable and that exposure to the outside world is minimal.
I think he's completely wrong there. Democracy is unthinkable to the Saudi Royal family, the various Emirs, Assad, Mubarak etc, not to the religious groups. Limited as it is, Iran has more democracy now than it did under the Shah.
It is also that circle that leads the way in blaming everybody outside the Moslem world, for the miseries of the region.
I don't think they do. They certainly blame their own governments too. It strikes me that most analysis of the Middle East ignores the fact that there is only one Islamic country, Iran, and an awful lot of corrupt dictatorships with Islamic opposition movements.
It's far more effective for an opposition movement to place blame on foreign forces. Hitler blamed the international Jewish conspiracy, the communists international capitalism.
The fourth element of the current world conflict is the total breaking of all laws. The civilized world believes in democracy, the rule of law, including international law, human rights, free speech and free press, among other liberties. There are naïve old-fashioned habits such as respecting religious sites and symbols, not using ambulances and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human bombs. Never in history, not even in the Nazi period, was there such total disregard of all of the above as we observe now.
I think he's being silly claiming the Nazis respected laws and norms more than the Islamic world.
Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.
Do you condemn your opponents use of ambulances, whilst using them to transport your own soldiers on offensive missions against those opponents?
Do you drop a 2000lb bomb on an inhabited apartment block because it contains a man you want to kill? Do you fire a tank shell at a crowd in a market who are breaking curfew? Do you settle 300 of your citizens in amongst people you deny citizenship to, and set up a free fire zone around the settlement? Do you shoot children dead from a kilometre away when they cross an undefined line 200 yards from the settlement? Do you keep on establishing new settlements, knowing it will deprive the people you deny citizenship to of their freedom of movement, their livelihood, an adequate water supply, and will inevitably lead to the odd "accidental" death?
To focus on Palestinian crimes whilst not even mentioning some of the issues behind them is disengenuous.
Now that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the latter being a Syrian colony
I think this betrays the Israeli agenda in this more than anything. Clearly, Saudi Arabia is the most dangerous terrorist state to the west. Not through the direct actions of their government, but through the situation that government has created. It was Saudis who were behind 911, not Iranian, Syrian or Lebanese. Iran, Syria and Lebanon are Israel's bugbears.
Is the solution a democratic Arab world? If by democracy we mean free elections but also free press, free speech, a functioning judicial system, civil liberties, equality to women, free international travel, exposure to international media and ideas, laws against racial incitement and against defamation, and avoidance of lawless behavior regarding hospitals, places of worship and children, then yes, democracy is the solution.
That I agree with.
On the other hand, a certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.
Agree again. The West should have pushed for more openness amongst Arab regiemes decades ago. Instead we allowed them to behave as they liked as long as they didn't turn communist or fundamentalist and kept the oil flowing. (not that that was an unreasonable course to take, but it's led to the current situation)
What's your take on these situations then? How does Israel figure into each of them?
It doesn't. But there are literally dozens of wars going on in the world that have nothing to do with Islam either. Africa is full of them. Backward regions tend to have lots of wars.
-
The Middle East hasn't developed like other regions of the world. The oil meant corrupt regimes were propped up by the west (principally America). Islam isn't the reason things are so badly wrong in the region, the Arabs see Islam as the alternative to what they have now.
Islam is to an Arab now what communism was to Russians in 1916.
It's an alternative to the corruption and oppresive rule of men who the man on the street thinks have sold out to the America"
-----Nashwan
So why don't they suicide bomb these oppressive rulers?
-
Pongo
Isreael is used as an excuse for all the problems in the mide east by people who dont want to face their own deeper problems.
In many ways its no different than poor whites in the south blaming blacks and jews for their poverty instead of their own backwardness.
Although israel is a part of the problem there are far bigger real issues. Israel is just a convenient excuse.
According to the 911 Congressional panel investigation Al Qaedas major operations were carried out and September 11 was devised and planned in the mid and late 1990s, the period of the highest peace and optimism in the palestenian and israeli problem...
Its a FAR bigger problem than israel.
-
So why don't they suicide bomb these oppressive rulers?
Because it's easier to hate "them" than "us" (ie any outside group), because the opressive rulers generally have more effective police forces, and because the opressive rulers to a certain extent fund and tolerate the extremists whilst attacks are not directly aimed at them.
Also, the vast majority of suicide attacks in the ME are by Palestinians against Israel, there have been a much smaller number by other groups against the west.
Al Quaida clearly wants to get the west out of the middle east, presumably once that has happened they will turn more attention to their own governments. It's no good overthrowing the Suadis whilst American troops are in the region, because the Americans will step in to stop an Islamic regieme being established.
-
I read the whole thing and the guy pretty muched nailed it. We are in a world war with fanatics and we need to fight them head-on and go on the offensive, because nothing short will stop them. It is a world war.
When people say we can't fight "terrorism" because terrorism is "a system, not a defined enemy" they are dead wrong. The countries that support terrorists are what we need to be fighting and the rest will take care of itself. That should define the war on terrorism, and Bush made that clear in the beginning.... we not differentiate a nation that harbors or supports terrorists from the terrorists themselves.
We need to go after the countries that support terrorists, plain and simple.
We need to go after Syria, Iran and Arafat and the terror groups under and around the PLA .
Iraq was not a mistake, it was a necessity and a good start as well as good example to others, like Lybia. We need to fight now and offensively, not fight later as a reaction.
Great read and worth the time to do so.
-
Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.
I think the bias may be in the eyes of each individual reader.
I can easily see where one who believes the author is just focused on the Palestinian/Israeli aspect can take that from this quote.
When I read it, however, I saw pretty much what is going on in Iraq right now. I really didn't attach any particular P/I significance to it. I saw it as an overview of the situation.
It's pretty clear the Islamic militants are doing these things wherever they come in conflict with the "outsiders", not just in Gaza.
I pretty much saw the whole article in that light, a worldwide overview.
-
"I think you're fixated on the Arab/Israeli aspect of this as written by a Jew.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck. Seems he is blaming the world's problems on his enemies. I didn't see him call any other parts of the world "dysfunctional", you know, where they butcher each other, like Africa or Kosovo? I'm sure we could come up with a few more. He makes some good points, but ones that could be used to describe other parts of the world too. If you say his speach is unbiased, I do not agree.
What's your take on these situations then? How does Israel figure into each of them?
Well, how does Isreal figure into kosovo? Or arpartheid? Or the aborigines? Or any situation in Africa? But did they figure in the palestinian people and how they live, or palestine? Let me ask you a question, does Isreal practice expansionism? Before you answer, let me point out their government subsidy for having many kids(we won't mention the territory taken yet). And where are they expanding? There is only one place to go, arab land, now do they figure in? How can you say his speach is unbiased if he points out situations where Isreal is not a factor, but refuses to mention that of which Isreal is?
Now we may indeed have to deal with the rest of the middle east, and if that does not include saudi arabia, then terrorism will never end. And Isreal has nothing to do with that. But it does have alot to do with arab areas around it, and this man refuses to mention it. Is Isreal the root of the problems in the middle east? Of course not, but i'de say they have more to do with it than Jordan, but yet Jordan is part of the "dysfunctional" area. It is a duck my friend.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I didn't see him call any other parts of the world "dysfunctional", you know, where they butcher each other, like Africa or Kosovo?
You guys need to slow down and read it.
Right at the beginning he says:
our Chairman suggested that I present my own personal view on events in the part of the world from which I come.[/u]
You know, if he was from Africa or Kosovo he might have focused on that. Go figure.
I didn't say his speech was unbiased by the way. I said I think a lot of the bias is in the eyes of the reader. For example, the way you miss his "mission statement" right at the beginning and jump on Africa and Kosovo.
I'm sure if he solely addressed the Palestinian/Israeli issue in and of itself you'd have lots to talk about.
Again, I see this as an overview of the problems the entire world may soon have with Islamic militants and their support structure.
Like I said, one of his most telling comments in my opinon is:
According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates.
What do you think of that, Six? Forget P/I for a second and address something he actually said.
Does that statement worry you in the least? It does me.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What do you think of that, Six? Forget P/I for a second and address something he actually said.
Does that statement worry you in the least? It does me.
Then you must really be worried about africa, shoot, I don't think some of those countries have books to translate.
-
Well, I'm not seeing that many Africans beheading Americans lately.
Maybe I missed it.
-
BTW, if you want to discuss some of his concepts, I'll oblige.
If you just want to assault the writer, I'll pass.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, I'm not seeing that many Africans beheading Americans lately.
Maybe I missed it.
Is somalia in africa?
But we are getting off the statement, you take this
"According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates."
As a reason that muslims do not like us right? So if we find other countries in the world that translate less, would they be a threat to us too? Is that how this works? You are looking for reasons to justify your opinion about a region or people, and imo, that is not a good reason to go by. I'm sure the people of that region would like to read about other parts of the world, but governments like that of saudi arabia will not let that happen.
BTW, I do not think I assaulted the writer.
-
No, I would see it as an indicator that they're not too interested in what's going on in the world. I'd see it as an indicator that the problem is pretty deep and that change will be extremely slow if at all. I take it in the vein that folks that aren't interested in learning are usually hard to deal with; they think they already know everything they need to know.
OK, maybe "assaulted" is the wrong choice. Let's say you've focused on the author rather than what he had to say. There's lots of folks that I don't particularly care for that still say intelligent thing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, I would see it as an indicator that they're not too interested in what's going on in the world. I'd see it as an indicator that the problem is pretty deep and that change will be extremely slow if at all. I take it in the vein that folks that aren't interested in learning are usually hard to deal with; they think they already know everything they need to know.
I agree, but we partake in that by pampering saudi arabia. Can you think of a more oppressive government than that of saudi arabia? If your wife's head gear falls off the police beat her in front of you in public. And don't get caught reading any western books either. But, for the love of oil, they are our "friends". Al-qeada has it's very origins from saudi arabia, and probably most of it's money.
OK, maybe "assaulted" is the wrong choice. Let's say you've focused on the author rather than what he had to say. There's lots of folks that I don't particularly care for that still say intelligent thing.
I think I mentioned he makes some valid points, but alot of those are points we already know. What I tried to focus on is what he didn't say, which, imo, makes his speach biased. When we point out other's faults, we often point out our own and what we can try to do to improve them, I think his speach does not include that, thus the bias.
-
I see. We pamper Saudi Arabia so none of the rest of the countries are interested in spreading knowledge.
Gotcha.
Nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I see. We pamper Saudi Arabia so none of the rest of the countries are interested in spreading knowledge.
I am showing you a country who does exactly what you say, but they get our support, why?
We pamper saudi arabia, who leads the way and holds most influence in the region. You showed me a point, I showed you how we partake in that. You know, it's funny, some say we support Isreal too much, but saudi arabia does not get the same argument, I don't understand. Never forget. And never forget that almost all of the hijackers of TWC attack were from saudi arabia.
-
Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it cannot be avoided.
Tell me how our relationship with Saudia Arabia somehow provides the answer to these questions.
Like I said, nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tell me how our relationship with Saudia Arabia somehow provides the answer to these questions.
And what does that have to do with the translation of books?
If the terrorists you mention above include al-qeada, and it gets alot of money and members from saudi sources, and we turn a blind eye to it, is our relationship relevant then? We support a brutally oppressive regime with as much hate against the west as any nation in the region(if not more). It is the "Mecca" of anti west sentiment.
-
A well written speech.
But as has been pointed out; a little biased.
His point about the concentric circles of terrorism is well made. But how do we starve them of funds? The industrial West is in the position of a junkie that hates his dealer - the only way to starve these people is not to buy their oil. Can we do that?
And... to add to his list of dilemmas:
Do you support insurgents in a hostile regime?
To my knowledge (and I'd love to be shown wrong); while the USA and Britain have condemmed terrorism; niether have defined it nor publicaly said they won't support it - and both regimes have in the past supported terror groups.
It's a very difficult formulation; but we need to find a way of defining freedom fighter from terrorist; if indeed it can be done; and making dam sure which we support.
-
Originally posted by ravells
(3) Arabs actually spend a large amount of their time and energy fighting amongst themselves. Well....they do. That sort of behaviour is not going to improve their economies any.
What exactly do you mean Ravs ?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
It's a very difficult formulation; but we need to find a way of defining freedom fighter from terrorist; if indeed it can be done; and making dam sure which we support.
i think Tronsky has wrote.:
Terrorist are freedom figters who we do not support.
Freedom fighters are terrorist who we do support.
-
Lada wrote:
"i think Tronsky has wrote.:
Terrorist are freedom figters who we do not support.
Freedom fighters are terrorist who we do support."
Which is an extension of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"; which to my mind is a thoroughly discredited theory.
How much American support did the Afghani Mujadeen recieve because they were the enemy of America's enemy back in the 80's? I think there was even a Rambo film made.. How happy are we now that those people were supported? No; for me at least; such a simple philosophy as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is out dated.
That would be tantamount to supporting Protestant Irish Terrorists because they kill republican Irish terrorists; a bankrupt notion if one's aim is to stop terrorism altogether: there can be no "good" terrorism.
Anyway; an unusually thought provoking post; Toad.
This may get a laugh (or not)...
An ABC of Terrorism (http://citypages.com/databank/25/1227/article12184.asp)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And what does that have to do with the translation of books?
Nothing. Nor does the US/Saudi relationship have anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations.
But somehow you think that's key.
******************
Seeker, I don't know that he offers solutions. Rather, I think he highlights problems with a bit of a (his) view on cause and effect.
It's not likely that these problems are going away anytime soon. If he's right and they grow and spread, encompassing even Europe, it will have everyone's attention.
-
The only way to fight this new "popular" weapon is identical to the only way in which you fight organized crime or pirates on the high seas: the offensive way. Like in the case of organized crime, it is crucial that the forces on the offensive be united and it is crucial to reach the top of the crime pyramid. You cannot eliminate organized crime by arresting the little drug dealer in the street corner. You must go after the head of the "Family".
A main point he makes is that we have to be on the offensive and go after the countries ( top of the pyramid) that support, finance or harbor terrorists, then the "family" will die.
He also makes a point that Europe doesn't get it yet, that they need to wake up to the fact that this is a war.... a world war that needs unity and an offensive effort.
I believe we need to make plans for Syria and Iran next..... maybe a couple others. If we do not take the threat seriously, we will one day have a WMD attack as our reward for doing nothing.
We need Europe and Russia to help.
-
Another point I'd like to make is that some of our allies and the UN sent the wrong message in the years of the Iraq situation.
They waffled on Iraq and sent a message to Syria and Iran that they could count on the world to turn a blind eye.
With Europe, the US and Russia united and willing to use force against these nutz, this war could be over relatively quickly.
As it is, France, Germany, Russia, and the UN only give the nutz hope.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nothing. Nor does the US/Saudi relationship have anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations.
But somehow you think that's key
We support a regime that oppresses it's people from knowledge, I would say that's relevant.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
A main point he makes is that we have to be on the offensive and go after the countries ( top of the pyramid) that support, finance or harbor terrorists, then the "family" will die.
He also makes a point that Europe doesn't get it yet, that they need to wake up to the fact that this is a war.... a world war that needs unity and an offensive effort.
I believe we need to make plans for Syria and Iran next..... maybe a couple others. If we do not take the threat seriously, we will one day have a WMD attack as our reward for doing nothing.
We need Europe and Russia to help.
I totally agree with the speech that was presented and this view on it. I actually think both Syria and Iran believe the same thing.
As for the "Pallistinian overtones", I agree with Toad. These are things that may have been made "popular" by pallestinians, but are also being used in Iraq with great effectiveness... and with complete media support.
MiniD
-
Go ahead, make the case that it is only the oppressiveness of the US-supported Saudi regime that accounts for the lack of interest in acquiring new knowledge and a better view of the "outside world" in Saudi Arabia.
Then extend this case to show that the Evil USA is the reason the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates
Six, you're just a fixated drive-by. You haven't really addressed the theme of this guy's speech in the least.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Go ahead, make the case that it is only the oppressiveness of the US-supported Saudi regime that accounts for the lack of interest in acquiring new knowledge and a better view of the "outside world" in Saudi Arabia.
Did I make the case it is the only one? I would say that saudi arabia holds alot of influence in the region, and we support them. How's this for knowledge, you know what they teach in their schools? That armageddon is when God comes down and kills all the Jews, no kidding. You call it a lack of interest, and I say you are wrong, I say their government will not allow them to have that interest. What human, just by nature, does not want to know about the rest of the world they live in? Unless, of course, you will be beat to a pulp if you try to gain that knowledge.
Then extend this case to show that the Evil USA is the reason the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates
Lol, the evil USA, very good, you are beginning to reach now. I do not believe in our policy towards saudi arabia, so therefor I am calling the USA evil, a clear sign of a lost argument. So if this translation thing holds true to form, then any nation that does not translate books is a threat to our security? You have got to be kidding.
Six, you're just a fixated drive-by.
Fight fire with fire I always say.
You haven't really addressed the theme of this guy's speech in the least.
Oh, I think I have. He paints the the region, as a whole, "dysfuntional" I think that is a slap in the face to countries such as Jordan, that are at least trying to live in peace with Isreal, but because they are muslim, get painted as "dysfunctional". If this speach were by a muslim listing all of Isreal's faults, would it be bias? Of course it would. Just as much as his speach is.
-
Sixpense, you can't carry on an argument if you do not even comprehend the speach.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Sixpense, you can't carry on an argument if you do not even comprehend the speach.
Explain
"The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional"
Now my comprehension may not be good, but it seems he is painting with a pretty broad brush, no?
"Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago."
Now, again, my comprehension is not that good, but this, I think would include saudi arabia, a government we support.
"If part of the public supports it, others tolerate it, many are afraid of it and some try to explain it away by poverty or by a miserable childhood, organized crime will thrive and so will terrorism. The United States understands this now, after September 11."
I don't think we do, almost all of TWC hijackers were saudi, millions of dollars from saudi arabia went to al-qeada. But no one takes a hard stance against them, is this not what this guy is trying to say? As long as we support saudi arabia, we, inadvertently give support to terrorism. You can try to explain it away or tolerate what saudi arabia is about, but that's the way it is. And until we take a hard line with the saudis, terrorism will thrive.
"It is a daily occurrence that the same people, who finance, arm and dispatch suicide murderers, condemn the act in English in front of western TV cameras, talking to a world audience, which even partly believes them. It is a daily routine to hear the same leader making opposite statements in Arabic to his people and in English to the rest of the world. Incitement by Arab TV, accompanied by horror pictures of mutilated bodies, has become a powerful weapon of those who lie, distort and want to destroy everything. Little children are raised on deep hatred and on admiration of so-called martyrs, and the Western World does not notice it because its own TV sets are mostly tuned to soap operas and game shows. I recommend to you, even though most of you do not understand Arabic, to watch Al Jazeera, from time to time."
Hmmm, and what government does this sound like?
"The outer circle is largely financed by Saudi Arabia"
Wow, who would have thought that?
"The outer circle cannot be eliminated by force"
And it sure will not be eliminated by supporting those who support it.
Again, how can we fight something that, at it's root, we tolerate and support? If you comprehend this man's speach, then how can you stand by our policy towards saudi arabia?
-
I think Sandman nailed it when he said this should be called "The War against Militant Islam". Calling it the "War or Terror" is like saying WWII should have been called "The War on Blitzkrieg Tactics" or some such.
It would make things a hell of a lot more clear... and the goals, tactics as well as who the allies/enemies really are would become much more appearent.
I think they don't do this for the very reason Sixpence points out. Merely changing the term would put them immediately into confrontation with some current allies of the US, such as the Saudis.
So what's left is half measures, with half results. It's like agreeing to fight with one arm tied behind your back.
And it's just one of the things that make the Iraq war seem so dubious. You want people to be "with you" in the "war on terror" yet you go after a country with insignificant ties to it and ignore those countries with more blatant connections. The result is that it makes "the war on terror" itself seem rather suspect. Do you actually want to win it or not?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think Sandman nailed it when he said this should be called "The War against Militant Islam". Calling it the "War or Terror" is like saying WWII should have been called "The War on Blitzkrieg Tactics" or some such.
It would make things a hell of a lot more clear... and the goals, tactics as well as who the allies/enemies really are would become much more appearent.
I think they don't do this for the very reason Sixpence points out. Merely changing the term would put them immediately into confrontation with some current allies of the US, such as the Saudis.
So what's left is half measures, with half results. It's like agreeing to fight with one arm tied behind your back.
And it's just one of the things that make the Iraq war seem so dubious. You want people to be "with you" in the "war on terror" yet you go after a country with insignificant ties to it and ignore those countries with more blatant connections. The result is that it makes "the war on terror" itself seem rather suspect. Do you actually want to win it or not?
The "name" means little to me. People know what the war on "terror" means.
I know it, you know it, Sandman knows it......everyone knows it.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I do not believe in our policy towards saudi arabia,
No kidding? That's where you miss the point of the article. You're basically Saudi-centric or Saudi-phobic. You can't see anything else here.
Basically all you've said is Saudia does that and the US supports Saudia.
I think he shows there's a bit more to it than that.
For example:
The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment.
Pretty big important concept there, IMO. What do we do now?
Wait.... let me guess... this problem has its roots in Saudia, which is, of course, supported by the US.
Sheesh.
-
Well I don't.
Perhaps if the admin's actions were slightly more consistent with a war on terror, then I would...
Calling it what it really is would sort of "out" the whole thing. It would give this war a new yardstick by which to measure its success, and the tactics would change accordingly... I think.
But it will continue to be called this fuzzy "war on terror" because there are limitations to the extent the US is willing to go to actually win such a thing.
There's gotta be a parallel to Vietnam here somewhere.
-
BTW, you'll note he includes Saudia as part of the problem. So I guess you agree with him.
Just about everyone does, it's just that not everyone is fixated on Saudia to the exclusion of all else.
-
Nash, remember the outcry when Bush used "crusade" in a speech?
What do you think would happen if he switched to "The War Against Militant Islam"?
I'm thinking it would be very similar.
-
Right, I agree.
But it's like.... Either ya want to win and are committed to doing the things you need to do, or you don't.
I don't think you can have it both ways. The author in your post here certainly doesn't, most people agree with his remarks, and yet this guy wants to call it WWIII. Think about the outcry if THAT were to happen.
Vietnam was never officially declared a war, was it? It was as fuzzy as this "war on terror", and look at the results.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Right, I agree.
But it's like.... Either ya want to win and are committed to doing the things you need to do, or you don't.
I don't think you can have it both ways. The author in your post here certainly doesn't, most people agree with his remarks, and yet this guy wants to call it WWIII. Think about the outcry if THAT were to happen.
Vietnam was never officially declared a war, was it? It was as fuzzy as this "war on terror", and look at the results.
I think the US showed how commited we are... the rest of the world ( for most part) has shown how ignorant they can be.
-
If by committed you mean invading Iraq... it certainly shows commitment, to something....
-
Originally posted by Nash
If by committed you mean invading Iraq... it certainly shows commitment, to something....
committed to eliminating a threat. Syria and Iran next hopefully.
-
You and I basically agree, differing only on timing.
I'm beginning to drift towards the idea that the day will come when more countries than just the US are ready to declare a "War on Militant Islam".
Until then, I think it would be a mistake to change the name. It would probably help put it in perspective for the folks on our side. The folks on the other side are going to hear "US Crusaders are upon us!" which would negate anything we'd gain.
We may just have to wait until the crazies are whacking everyone. Which is pretty much what this author says, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You and I basically agree, differing only on timing.
I'm beginning to drift towards the idea that the day will come when more countries than just the US are ready to declare a "War on Militant Islam".
Until then, I think it would be a mistake to change the name. It would probably help put it in perspective for the folks on our side. The folks on the other side are going to hear "US Crusaders are upon us!" which would negate anything we'd gain.
We may just have to wait until the crazies are whacking everyone. Which is pretty much what this author says, isn't it?
excuse my ignorance, but who are you agreeing with and what do you mean by timing?
-
Totally, Toad.
But it's like a paradox.
On the one hand it would be ideal for everyone to get in on the game. And they (like the US admin) may shy away from accepting things as they are ("war against militant islam").
Yet by calling it "the war on terror" and following this fuzzy term with just as fuzzy tactics (if it is a wholesale war on terror, then I think the Iraq war can be called a tactic), it leads to a credibility problem which makes the rest of the world shy away from the fight as much if not more than if this whole thing was accepted for what it is, carefully spelled out and prosecuted as such.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Totally, Toad.
But it's like a paradox.
On the one hand it would be ideal for everyone to get in on the game. And they (like the US admin) may shy away from accepting things as they are ("war against militant islam").
Yet by calling it "the war on terror" and following this fuzzy term with just as fuzzy tactics (if it is a wholesale war on terror, then I think the Iraq war can be called a tactic), it leads to a credibility problem which makes the rest of the world shy away from the fight as much if not more than if this whole thing was accepted for what it is, carefully spelled out and prosecuted as such.
Nash, you are trying to use a word to define the war as an excuse to avoid the truth. Everyone knows who we are fighting.....you do too. Lets just call it "the war againt the people that want to kill us all."
Would that clarify it for the mainstream fence sitters? I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, you are trying to use a word to define the war as an excuse to avoid the truth.
Much like the coiners of the term "War on Terror", I suspect.
But replace one BS term with another? I don't think so.
Because the people who may want to "kill us all" aren't quite the same as the people who are apt to actually try such a thing. ie., Militant Islam. You can't go in and kill every uneducated and ill-informed citizen... it's the ones with the guns the bombs and the passports that should be recieving your full attention.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Basically all you've said is Saudia does that and the US supports Saudia.
No, you miss the point. We play both sides of the fence, either you stand for something, or you don't. By playing it the way we do, we cannot accomplish our goals. i.e., we can't tie Iraq to al-qeada, yet use the thought of it towards justifying an invasion. We can, however, tie saudi money and citizens to al-qeada, yet turn a blind eye to it.
I think he shows there's a bit more to it than that.
He makes a lot of valid points, but he makes some that are not, like painting muslims, as a whole, "dysfunctional", you do not find that bias?
For example:
"The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment."
Pretty big important concept there, IMO. What do we do now?
Again, you are painting with a broad brush. I do not think Jordan is a land of lawlessness, or Egypt, yet they are "dysfunctional", in his eyes, because they are muslim. I can think of other parts of the world that that are worse off than those two countries.
Wait.... let me guess... this problem has its roots in Saudia, which is, of course, supported by the US.
Your getting close, the US is fighting terrorists and supports the saudi government, who support terrorists. Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail.
Sheesh.
-
Very interesting read.
Thank you, Toad.
-
Toad said:
"I'm beginning to drift towards the idea that the day will come when more countries than just the US are ready to declare a "War on Militant Islam". "
Never.
But make it a war on militant religion and you may be on to something. Your branch Davidsons; your Ashcrofts, your Nettanhyus (sp?) with thier "higher truths" and even your Mormons scare us over here as much as any scripture spouting immam.
It scares me rigid to think your President makes war descions guided by his imaginary friend. Once you go that way; you can rationalize anything.
-
Originally posted by Nash
credibility problem which makes the rest of the world shy away from the fight as much if not more than if this whole thing was accepted for what it is, carefully spelled out and prosecuted as such.
We disagree here.
The rest of the world may just be sticking their collective heads in the sand and hoping the jihadis won't notice them. They don't want any part of this fight. For some it's political, for some it's simply risk aversion, for some it's probably both.
For example, the Russians apparently warn us of Iraq's intentions to damage the US and then vote against the US in the UN/SC.
I don't think changing the "name of the game" is suddenly going to bring allies rushing to our side. They are going to have to experience it for themselves, which is one thing the author points out.
I think the Iranian nuke program will show this quite clearly. Let's see what the UN does when Iran basically tells them to go fly a kite. Seems there almost there.
Let's see what our "allies" do then. My bet is nada.
It's going to take explosions in their own countries before any "name change" is going to change their postures.
IMO.
-
Dunno Seeker.
Imagine that the French had stuck to their "no headscarves in school" position and then carbombs started popping in Paris.
The loony faction of the Muslims has always been of the type that "knows what's best for YOU". They seem to have this need to make folks conform to the Quran.
When they finally come to your country.... maybe you'll change your mind.
The Moors.......... how far did they get again?
-
Well, yeah. Likely.
But in the meantime, as long as the US is going for it, it might be better served if it realistically came to terms with this thing.
I don't know how you even fight a war on terror, let alone measure the results.
It may seem like a small thing to some, this term and its significance. But calling it what it actually is would reflect a change in thinking not only of what it is, but how to effectively deal with it. It'd represent a leap into reality.
A leap I am certain even the US doesn't want to take. So I really don't know how can this be won, currently.
-
Originally posted by Toad
When they finally come to your country.... maybe you'll change your mind.
They've (terrorists) been in my country for almost a centuary with broad American backing.
Do you see why America's sudden war on terrorism strikes us as a bit hollow?
I've yet to see a Euro leader shaking Bin Ladin's hand; what ever you may think of the french.
The pictures of Gerry Adams in the white house are public domain...
At the same time; right now; all across the western world; there are terrorists being harboured because; right now; they're the "right" sort of terrorists; the enemies of our enemies.
And in ten years; we'll be fighting them too.
In just the same way as we supported Bin Ladin against communist Russia; and we supported Saddam against radical Iran; think and wonder for a moment: Which man of violence that my government is currently supporting will be plotting to kill my son in ten years time?
Haven't you wondered why niether the White house nor Downing street can come out and say:
" we will not support men of violence" ?
Maybe because the next Bin Ladin is being financed right now to kill Bin Ladin - and what happens when he does? Will that "freedom fighter" calmly say "thanks for the contract job; I'll get on with my real life now"?
I think not.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
[ We can, however, tie saudi money and citizens to al-qeada, yet turn a blind eye to it.
You make an invalid assumption here. I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms. What would YOU have us do? Do you want to antagonize them (with the concomitant results on the US) and hope they change faster that way?
painting muslims, as a whole, "dysfunctional", you do not find that bias?
Read it again. What he actually said was:
entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional
He's right if you compare it to any other "civilized region" as a whole. What regions do you feel are the most violent at present?
Again, you are painting with a broad brush.
I'm not painting anything, nor is he. Once again, to help you out, here's what he actually said:
"The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment."
That's the problem statement. The question was what do you do.
Clearly, there are a lot of "lawless environments" in the "Moslem region" he discusses. Your solution/comment/whatever is........ it doesn't happen in Jordan or Egypt.
I guess we somehow make these lawless areas into Egypt or Jordan clones? Wave a wand or what? Wait.. I know.. it's the Saudi/Amreekan connection again.
Your getting close, the US is fighting terrorists and supports the saudi government, who support terrorists. Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail.
"For 30 years, the U.S. worked to buttress the status quo in Saudi Arabia," Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said at a conference at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in late January. "Now it wants regime change. It's not the status quo policy it used to be."
That was January of this year.
-
Bush wants a regime change in Saudi Arabia? First I've heard of that.
-
Gerry Adams has indeed been to the White House and had his hand shaken. So has Yassir Arafat; more times than Gerry even. S
What do you make of that?
Is it possible the US tried to help work out a peace agreement between Sinn Fein/Provos and your government?
"The enemies of my enemies" idea; do you have a better idea?
Just go it alone and take them all on at once then?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Bush wants a regime change in Saudi Arabia? First I've heard of that.
Here's a bit more of it and a link
No issue currently rankles the Saudi royal family more than the Bush administration's talk of promoting political reform. President Bush's latest plan, the Greater Middle East Initiative, is scheduled to be formally unveiled in June at the summit of the Group of Eight leading industrial powers in Sea Island, Ga.
"For 30 years, the U.S. worked to buttress the status quo in Saudi Arabia," Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said at a conference at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in late January. "Now it wants regime change. It's not the status quo policy it used to be."
During a visit to neighboring Yemen in late March, Prince Saud, the foreign minister, said that U.S. "ideas and proposals" amounted to "flagrant accusations against the Arab countries and people."
U.S.-Saudi Relations Show Signs of Stress - Reformers Labeled 'Agents of America' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A28719-2004Apr20¬Found=true)
-
Middle East initiative unveiled (http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/me040610.html)
The impetus for this to be on the G8 agenda came out of the Bush Admin.
I know that will disappoint so many out there in internet land. ;)
I think it disappointed a lot of Arab leaders, including the Saudis.
-
Originally posted by lada
What exactly do you mean Ravs ?
Well, lada, if you look at the civil war in the Sudan and the Iran Iraq war, Iraq invading Kuwait (to name but three, I'm sure there are others), these are Arabs fighting other Arabs.
As an Arab friend of mine said...I don't really see what the west is too worried about, the Islamic world are so busy fighting one another, they'll never be united on one front...although interestingly our press is presenting them one way, so maybe one day it will become a problem of our own making.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Gerry Adams has indeed been to the White House and had his hand shaken. So has Yassir Arafat; more times than Gerry even. S
What do you make of that?
A very well put point; but to follow you :
Originally posted by Toad
Is it possible the US tried to help work out a peace agreement between Sinn Fein/Provos and your government?[/B]
Yes, of course; which would lead one to believe that dialogue; and not a "If you're not with us then you're a Fenian bastard the SAS should take out" was more productive.
Originally posted by Toad
"The enemies of my enemies" idea; do you have a better idea?
[/B]
Yes; I do. Would you really ally Hussein or Bin Ladin again?
-
Ah, had no idea - thanks for the info and link. I also appreciate the fact that while your links are sometimes cumbersome in BBS debates, I never have to be skeptical of the credibility or source of them...
But political reform does not a regime change make:
Bush: "And you mentioned my friend, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. He and I have discussed reform before. He understands the need to reform. You know, it's not going to meet the expectations of every American. But nevertheless, he understands the need to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people."
Maybe Saleh Mani can explain how asking the Saudi government to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people translates into regime change.
And it's no longer the "Middle East Initiative"... It's been retitled to "Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa", or ""PPCFRBMENA" for short. :)
Continuing to water down the idea that the US is getting tough on the Saudis is the fact that Bush and Saudis publicly maintain that the ties between the two countries remain strong, and that this PPCFRBMENA is something that is to be brought about by the countries it pertains to, themselves. Stuff like education reform and women's rights.
Against the backdrop of WWIII, this doesn't seem all that serious to me.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
not a "If you're not with us then you're a Fenian bastard the SAS should take out" was more productive.
Can you be certain that the carrot would work without the stick waving in the background?
There has to be a desire for the violence to stop on both sides; how did your government foster that desire in the Provos?
Without the SAS and the pressure they applied, could the White House have any effect?
Yes; I do. Would you really ally Hussein or Bin Ladin again?
I'd love to hear it in some detail.
Would I ally with SH or OBL again? Depends on the threat, doesn't it?
Would you shake hands with the devil in time of extreme peril if doing so would save your country?
We all made nice with Joe Stalin when we needed him didn't we? Not a very nice fellow at all. What would your solution have been then Seeker? Would you still have shunned him and gone it alone had you been Sir Winston?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Maybe Saleh Mani can explain how asking the Saudi government to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people translates into regime change.
Perhaps better to ask him why HE views that simple request as "regime change?"
Maybe what you see in print is not what is being said behind closed doors? Nah........ ;)
Would you really be suprised if the US and SA didn't wash all their dirty laundry in CNN's tub?
Continuing to water down the idea that the US is getting tough on the Saudis is the fact that Bush and Saudis publicly maintain that the ties between the two countries remain strong,
Well if you were POTUS, what would YOU say about a long standing ally that has been both the giver and recipient of major favors? Same question if you were running the Kingdom.
There's no denying this has been a long and very mutually beneficial relationship between the two nations. You think they're going to pitch into each other now? Both governments are under stress; do they need a little "ally anger" to add to the pile?
something that is to be brought about by the countries it pertains to, themselves. Stuff like education reform and women's rights.
Well, duh! You think the G8 are going to impose this stuff by force of arms? Nope, this is "smoky room" negotiation. I'm sure there's a lot of quid pro quo that we're not hearing. Along with some bluster and attempted intimidation.
Against the backdrop of WWIII, this doesn't seem all that serious to me.
You have to start somewhere don't you? Isn't this a small step on the path outlined by the author of the piece I started with here?
Better to do nothing? Or do this?
-
The Saudis know how weak they are and seem very interested in US relations. I have been spammed by Saudi Government email many times, heard their radio ad campaigns recently and seen their Government reps on Fox news many times.......all professing their great freindship with America.
The Saudis are afraid and they know how serious the US is imho. I believe the Saudis are willing and capable of dealing with militants in their country. They may have been slow in acting, but they know what the game is now I think.
Syria and Iran are a different matter and they need to be delt with sooner rather than later.
And Nash, the name of the war means little in reality. Everyone knows who we are fighting and why.
-
In order to debunk the idea that the US is doing nothing about the Saudis you posted a quote from some guy who says the US wants a regime change.
I looked it up a bit, and this guy's interpretation is all wrong. Now ya say:
"Perhaps better to ask him why HE views that simple request as "regime change?"
But didn't you use him to support your argument? And your argument that the US isn't turning a blind eye and is pressuring the Saudis has now become this "simple request", as you say?
As for the rest, I thought we were doing just fine so far without supposition and backroom political intrigue of which we have no idea. "What is being said behind closed doors" and "smoky room negotiation".... well, it could be anything. There's enough that we DO know without having to go there. Besides, you could say anything and pawn off the responsibility of backing it up on this backdoor diplomacy stuff.
Is there a double standard when it comes to the Saudis? Does this double standard diminish the US's capability to fight WWIII? Is this relationship more important than actually winning the war? Does the US actually want to win this war? Why does the Saudi/US relationship exist as it does, or why doesn't the US want to prosecute the war as adamantly as it claims it does?
These questions are a lot more interesting to me than guessing (often incorrectly) what is really really REALLY actually going on behind closed doors.
-
Another way to look at that is this:
A somewhat prominent Saudi views it as a request for "regime change". That's the "argument" I made.
Now, given that the Saudi probably has a better idea of what's going on than any of us, I say.. "well, obviously HE views it as more than a "simple request". Why would that be?"
I didn't say it was a "simple request"; I used that for shorthand for your
Maybe Saleh Mani can explain how asking the Saudi government to speak to the hopes and aspirations of his people translates into regime change
I guess I could have cut/paste it... I'll try to do that for you in the future.
Anyway, Nash reads the article, decides the guy is wrong.
*****
Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh.
Nash.
We report, the readers decide. ;)
doing just fine so far without supposition and backroom political intrigue of which we have no idea.
I have this idea. I know that almost all political issues are resolved out of the media glare. I know that negotiating in the media goes on but that usually that is posturing for the public. I "know" this from my Union negotiating experience.
My opinion is that anyone who thinks deals are done otherwise is a babe in the woods.
I seriously doubt that the reported details of the "Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa" cover even 25% of what's actually goin on.
Believe what you want to believe about it, however.
*Is there a double standard when it comes to the Saudis?*
At the least there is more latitude; double standard is not beyond reason. Face it, right now, they're vital to the US economy. Vital as in VITAL.
* Does this double standard diminish the US's capability to fight WWIII?*
Of course it does. Is it the only factor? Of course not. Would it benefit our ability to fight if we so angered the Saudis that they refused to sell us oil?
*Is this relationship more important than actually winning the war?*
I think Henry Kissinger would say... "Realpolitik. It depends. At times it is, at times it isn't. Different issues take center stage at different times."
I think most people realize that's pretty much true in life.
* Does the US actually want to win this war?*
Of course it does. However, as we saw in WW2, not everything happens at once. Should we attack both the Germans and the Japanese simultaneously and with equal strength? Well, we wanted to.. but we couldn't. For lots of reasons. But it all worked out didn't it, although I think lots of additional lives were lost taking that approach.
*Why does the Saudi/US relationship exist as it does,*
Because it evolved over the last 60 years and different factors influenced it at different times. It wasn't planned to evolve specifically to face this exact threat at this time and place.
*or why doesn't the US want to prosecute the war as adamantly as it claims it does?*
What proof is there that it does not? What do you see not being done to your satisfaction given the detailed knowledge of the situation such a statement implies?
-
Nastradamus said that ww3 would start in the gulf. I guess he was right. He said the anti crist would be a blue eyed sheik and that the New City would be destroyed.
Sounds like some of you will only be happy with occupation of most of that region. Maybe old Nastrodamus had something.
-
"Anyway, Nash reads the article, decides the guy is wrong.
Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh.
Nash.
We report, the readers decide."
- Toad
Cute. But appearently your President, the Secretary of State and the Saudi Crown Prince seem to have a different take on things than this (whoooo) "political scientist". Do you still want to compare credentials?
It all boils down to the fact that the US does NOT want regime change in Saudi Arabia, so I don't know why you would suggest it does, and offer this guy's opinion as evidence.
You brought him here, not me.
Now, given that the Saudi probably has a better idea of what's going on than any of us, I say.. "well, obviously HE views it as more than a "simple request". Why would that be?"
Huh? Because he's a Saudi he has a better idea of what's going on wrt Saudi/American relations than any of us? You are an American right? Why is his opinion more learned than yours? Is it because he's a political scientist? There are a lot of political scientists invited to give their weighty opinions on CNN every day that you would take extreme exception to.
I'm done talking about this guy... His statement was wrong, and he has no more authority on the matter than you, for example.
But THANK YOU for your honesty in the last half of your post.
People who say this isn't about oil are delusional.
First, it was oil wot propped up these corrupt governments. I think it's a lot like the Prime Directive thing in Star Trek. Civilizations should probably develop at their own pace. But the amount of money and power that oil suddenly gave these countries was a total aberation. They were just not equipped to deal with it.
It's funny. The reason the Saudis don't want political reform is because (say the Saudi royal family) the country would elect people who can't even read or write." This is the same reason the US doesn't really want political reform there either, btw.
So, nice job of governance there, Saudis... A well informed bunch of people they obviously reared...
However, does a corrupt government *really* want to have an informed populace? Might make a dent in the bottom line, no?
That leads us to uninformed tribal nutjobs blowing everyone up.
A problem, it turns out.
But how do ya fight these guys when:
a) They're your allies' citizens, and
b) You rely on your allies
In WWII for example, a huge objective was to destroy your enemy's ability to wage war. It meant blowing up oil refineries and such.
It turns out that here, if you attack your enemy, you're attacking your OWN ability to wage war.
These clowns sure have got everyone over a barrel.
-
Part of it is about oil Nash, but not in the way people think. It's not about American oil supply, it's about making sure the WORLD's oil supply remains stable. We don't want to take anyone's oil, we just want to make sure it keeps pumping for everyone.
The other part of it is the war on terrorism. This is a world war that needs unity and is not just an American problem.
-
Read back a ways. What I said intially was:
I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms.
Things took off from there.
To the point that the "perfesser" viewed it as "regime change". His words, not mine.
Don't like him, eh? How about the Saudi Council of Ministers then?
No Reforms Under Foreign Pressure’ (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=40442&d=2&m=3&y=2004)
JEDDAH, 2 March 2004 — Saudi Arabia yesterday reiterated its rejection of foreign-imposed democratic reforms in the Arab world and said speedy solutions to the Palestinian and Iraqi issues were the best route to reforms and peace in the Middle East.
The weekly Council of Ministers’ meeting at Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh, chaired by Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, also condemned the Israeli barrier in the West Bank.
At the outset of the meeting, the crown prince briefed the ministers on the outcome of the talks between Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Riyadh last week.
The Cabinet welcomed a joint statement issued after the talks, which said Arab states would not accept a particular pattern of reform imposed from outside, in an apparent reference to US calls for democracy in the Middle East.
Look the question was "is the US trying to pressure the Saudis to reform?".
Clearly, they are. That's the whole "Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa" thing.
Even the Saudi Council of Ministers noticed.. but what do they know.
Now, you dismiss this out of hand. It's something the countries must/are doing for themselves. Your call.
I see it as:
1. It orginated in the Bush Administration. That would be the US "doing something".
2. Of course they have to do it for themselves. Unless you want us to use force of arms on them. But of course you wouldn't right? But pushing them to do it themselves is "not doing anything". Whatever.
Sometimes it seems there IS nothing that will suit ya.
******
The rest? Oil is the lifeblood of a modern industrial nation? Ummmmmmmm. Yeah. That's sort of what the Japanese were thinking in the early '40's and I don't see where much has changed in industrialized society.
However, things will change. There WILL be useful, workable alternative energy solutions. However, that may only exacerbate the problem.
How would the Arab extremists react if suddenly there were cheap alternative energy? Hydrogen.... sunlight/photovoltaics... whatever. If the rest of the world suddenly had no use for their oil, would that bring peace?
I suggest it would make war more likely. I don't think they'll take well to being totally ignored and stripped of influence.
Yeah, they say they want nothing to do with us. How would they actually react if they got their wish?
-
everyone is ignoring me in this thread, I feel like a dirty girl.
I'm off to listen to some CCR and change my panties.
-
Turkey waste turned into oil (http://www.newsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-liturk073836915jun07,0,7955292.story?coll=ny-nybusiness-headlines)
This one is datelined June 7.
...With the new $31-million plant now operating smoothly and generating a positive cash flow, ....
...The plant's first product, an oil similar to No. 4 grade crude oil, is being sold to an unidentified fuel blender at prices more than 10 percent less than the equivalent oil produced by a conventional refinery. Despite the discount, Appel said his production costs are low enough that the plant's income is outstripping its operating expenses......
...But animal scraps are only one potential source of "fuel" for Changing World's oil-making process, and the company recently reached an agreement with the three major U.S. automakers to investigate the use of auto shredder residue as a feedstock. If a second round of tests shows that the ground-up cars are suitable for thermal conversion, Appel said the company and the automakers may jointly build a plant in the Upper Midwest.....
It's stuff like this that gives me hope for us.
I'm concerned though that it won't solve our problem with them.
The loss their stature on the world stage may not be a good thing. The old "law of unintended consequences".
-
Originally posted by Toad
Read back a ways. What I said intially was: "I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms. "
Things took off from there.
They sure did, because when Sixpence said: "the US is fighting terrorists and supports the saudi government, who support terrorists", you try and refute that by bringing in a Saudi poli-sci prof whose opinion is at complete odds with reality.
Look the question was "is the US trying to pressure the Saudis to reform?"
You now say yes, but before it even got to this stage you were arguing with Sixpence that:
Nor does the US/Saudi relationship have anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations.
... wherein Sixpense says We support a regime that oppresses it's people from knowledge, I would say that's relevant.
THEN enter your esteemed Saleh Mani to argue that we aren't really supporting them.
Sixpense was dead-on... Keeping the mid-east citizens ignorant (which they have done deliberately) has paid huge dividends for not only the people who govern those citizens, but for everyone else who could then count on at least some semblence of consistency in their trade for oil.
But oops, now ya have a bunch of well financed ignorant militant types running around. A direct result. And you're suddenly in the akward position of biting the hand that feeds you.
-
There's ample evidence the US is trying to get the Saudi government to reform. Six is wrong that we're turning a blind eye.
You focus on the Saudi prof words. You have an opinion, so does he. I think the way a Saudi views it says more about it than how you view it. Just my opinion, like yours. The Council of Ministers seems to feel pressure too. I don't know why you argue against the obvious.
When did I NOT say we were trying to reform them?
How do you figure that the US/Saudi relationship has anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations? You have something, anything that shows we encouraged Arab leadership to keep their populations in ingnorance?
Anyway, it's a much wider problem than Saudia. The US isn't a causal factor in this, either in Saudia or the wider Arab world; to the contrary it's a self-imposed problem. Further, we're working against it as shown.
Noone's arguing that we don't have an overdependence on imported oil. And only a fool would argue that we should be "biting the hand that feeds us" right now.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You focus on the Saudi prof words.
Only because you asked us to in order to make your point.
You have an opinion, so does he. I think the way a Saudi views it says more about it than how you view it.
You realize that this guy appears in a long news article for only two sentences, to say the US wants regime change, without saying anything to support that conclusion.... he just says it.... then quickly disappears?
He doesn't say anything about anything. Christ man, I can't believe we're even still talking about him. His opinion means jack. It's one thing for you to even isolate these two sentences and offer them up here as evidence of anything, but it's another for you to continue bringing him up. He's just some dude!
How do you figure that the US/Saudi relationship has anything to do with the Arab world's apparent loss of interest in spreading knowledge to their populations? You have something, anything that shows we encouraged Arab leadership to keep their populations in ingnorance?
It has everything to do with the Saudi/US relationship. Not isolated to that, but it's a good example of...
No, you didn't encourage their leaders to keep their populations ignorant. You merely encouraged leaders who kept their populations ignorant.
If you disagree, then what do you mean by: "...to the contrary it's a self-imposed problem."
And only a fool would argue that we should be "biting the hand that feeds us" right now.
Oh? Seems your Haim Harari disagrees:
"The only way to fight this new "popular" weapon is identical to the only way in which you fight organized crime or pirates on the high seas: the offensive way. Like in the case of organized crime, it is crucial that the forces on the offensive be united and it is crucial to reach the top of the crime pyramid. You cannot eliminate organized crime by arresting the little drug dealer in the street corner. You must go after the head of the "Family".
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For 30 years, the U.S. worked to buttress the status quo in Saudi Arabia," Saleh Mani, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said at a conference at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in late January. "Now it wants regime change. It's not the status quo policy it used to be."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was January of this year.
That's nice, but I think this preceded that in the article.
A more ominous development was the failure of U.S. firms to win Saudi contracts in early March, the first time in 30 years that foreign companies were allowed back into the kingdom to explore for new gas deposits. Saudi Aramco, the largest state oil company in the world, signed deals with Russian, Chinese and European firms.
The Saudis initially intended to give Exxon Mobil Corp., the U.S. oil giant, the leading role in the deal, viewing the move as part of a larger strategy to revitalize the entire U.S.-Saudi relationship. But nearly five years of negotiations unraveled in June for reasons still being hotly debated -- the post-Sept. 11 chill, U.S. policy in the Middle East and squabbles over profit margins.
Oh yeah, all of a sudden relations are stressed, I can see that.
You make an invalid assumption here. I think there's evidence that we are not "turning a blind eye" and that we have tried to pressure the Saudis into some reforms. What would YOU have us do? Do you want to antagonize them (with the concomitant results on the US) and hope they change faster that way?
Looks like we don't have do anything, seems like they're are telling us to take a hike first. And don't worry, if the dollar sinks they will be trading oil in euro. With allies like them, who needs enemies.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's right if you compare it to any other "civilized region" as a whole. What regions do you feel are the most violent at present?
I still think a lot of Africa is, but do we label Africa as "dysfunctional"? No, because there are countries there that are functional. Unless, of course, you are bias against black people, then the whole of Africa becomes "dysfuntional".
I'm not painting anything, nor is he. Once again, to help you out, here's what he actually said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem is that the civilized world is still having illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the problem statement. The question was what do you do.
Clearly, there are a lot of "lawless environments" in the "Moslem region" he discusses. Your solution/comment/whatever is........ it doesn't happen in Jordan or Egypt.
He labels the whole region as "dysfunctional", no? Then the statement above addresses that. My question to you is why does Jordan and Egypt get labeled as such? Maybe because they are muslim and he is jew and has ill feelings towards them?
I guess we somehow make these lawless areas into Egypt or Jordan clones?
But he can make Jordan and Egypt clones of the dysfunctional. I do not consider them to be even close to what Iran and Syria are, but this writer does, because they are all part of the muslim region. And this is not bias?
He is right on the money that words are powerful. He uses them to get you into buying that a whole region and people are dysfuntional, and that scares me more than translations of books. There are many good muslims, and alot are in exile in other parts of the world, and alot are still in the region. They are not dysfuntional because they do not have the power to do it because foreign countries have supported brutal regimes(does the shaw of iran ring a bell?) that rule their people with an iron fist. Now all of a sudden we want them to rise up, when for years we helped keep them down.
What do we do? If we are going fight terrorism and those who support and win, we need to fight it wherever it is. And we need to stop supporting regimes that rule their people with force and ignorance. If we decide not to engage those who support terrorism, how can we win? Maybe there will be a stance against saudi arabia, and it seems the stance they have taken against us already will help that along.
-
Yeah, because it does make a point. A SAUDI thinks we're trying to reform them. So does their Council of Ministers. The point is made; the opinions of the Saudis themselves are out there if you open your eyes.
But no.. you and Six apparently insist that the US isn't putting pressure on the Saudis. A position that's untenable given the reports to the contrary.
You merely encouraged leaders who kept their populations ignorant.
That, however, would never qualify as a chain of evidence.
"...to the contrary it's a self-imposed problem."
They did it to themselves.
Cherrypicking Nash? You?
Ok, here. He said a LOT about what it will take:
...But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to realize that you are in a war, and this may take Europe a few more years.
....In order to win, it is necessary to first eliminate the terrorist regimes, so that no Government in the world will serve as a safe haven for these people....
...In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the financial resources of the terror conglomerate.
....It is crucial to stop Saudi and other financial support of the outer circle, which is the fertile breeding ground of terror.
It is important to monitor all donations from the Western World to Islamic organizations, to monitor the finances of international relief organizations and to react with forceful economic measures to any small sign of financial aid to any of the three circles of terrorism.
It is also important to act decisively against the campaign of lies and fabrications and to monitor those Western media who collaborate with it out of naivety, financial interests or ignorance....
....Above all, never surrender to terror. ....
There ya go. That's pretty much how he said to win. The Saudis are one part of it for sure.
Note that he did NOT say to "bite the hand that feeds you immediately."
In fact, an open-minded person could say that the pressure on the Saudis to reform by the US is a necssary first step in the attempt
to stop Saudi and other financial support
.
A beginning, some would say.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, because it does make a point. A SAUDI thinks we're trying to reform them.
No he doesn't. He thinks they want to Regime Change them. He's a Saudi teaching college in the US btw. And that's about the last I'm gonna comment on this guy. Now onto reading the rest of your post.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I feel like a dirty girl.I'm off to listen to some CCR and change my panties.
Now you're talkin! woohoo!
-
I see. "Regime Change" wouldn't be reform. Gotcha.
You're arguing semantics
-
Nash: "You merely encouraged leaders who kept their populations ignorant."
Toad: "That, however, would never qualify as a chain of evidence."
Is this the Gore/China defense I've heard so much about?
"Note that he did NOT say to "bite the hand that feeds you immediately." - Toad
Ohhh okay. I didn't didn't read the nuanced version of his speech. "Do it - but not immediately....." Ahh. So uh, when?
In fact, an open-minded person could say that the pressure on the Saudis to reform by the US is a necssary first step in the attempt
Yeah, it's real great, this so-called "pressure". Good stuff. Keep atter boys and we'll all be home by December.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I see. "Regime Change" wouldn't be reform. Gotcha.
You're arguing semantics
Toad?
George Bush saying to the Saudi government "We'd like you make some reforms in the areas of women's rights and education" is a whole lot different than saying to the Saudi government "We'd like you to leave."
Reform and Regime change are so totally different. What are you talking about?
-
C'mon Nash. I've encourages sports stars in football games that turned out to be wife beaters. There's no link.. no chain of evidence that I had anything to do with the wife beating.
Immediately seems to be what you want here. It's clear that the US is "doing something" but that's not enough for you.
So what do you want? C'mon, you seem to sit in judgement and declare our efforst insufficient. Shows us your wisdom.. what should we do? Immediately make the Saudi government our enemy? What?
Shine the light of your wisdom here.
-
What am I talking about?
I saying it's obvious to anyone that reads on the issue that the US IS trying to get the Saudis to reform. The professor, the Saudi Council of Ministers.. they see it. But not you.
-
I don't get you...
You make a post with a speech about basically declaring all out war with the middle east, then you wind up saying that it's a damn good thing that they propose furthering women's rights and education, because hell... it's a good first step isn't it?
Read what he said again:
"In order to win:
1) it is necessary to first eliminate the terrorist regimes, so that no Government in the world will serve as a safe haven for these people...
2) is also necessary to dry the financial resources of the terror conglomerate.
3) It is crucial to stop Saudi and other financial support of the outer circle, which is the fertile breeding ground of terror.
4) It is important to monitor all donations from the Western World to Islamic organizations (etc.)
5) It is also important to act decisively against the campaign of lies and fabrications and to monitor those Western media who collaborate with it out of naivety, financial interests or ignorance.... "
A little bit different than what's in "The Middle East PMNBFHKHGF Initiative". And a bit more, uh, progressive than women's rights and education reform.
-
Which was all in reply to the standard old tired line about the US being the problem because we're not trying to reform the Saudis.
Look.... we're trying to reform the Saudis. So the multitude of posts in that vein are just more smoke from you and six.
Now, you want to talk about what the guy actually wrote? Good.
Because "the US isn't trying to reform the Saudis and that's the real problem" is pretty well discredited as and argument and worn out anyway.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Show us your wisdom.. what should we do? Immediately make the Saudi government our enemy? What?
Shine the light of your wisdom here.
ARE you IN a WAR or ARE you NOT?
-
Yeah, we are. The rest of the world isn't in it yet though.
And that is one of the points worth discussing in this guy's speech. Will it happen? Is it inevitable?
And before you go where I suspect you're going, in war you very often have allies that aren't necessarily your friends.
Don't EVEN try to make the case that the Saudi government is not helping us more than hurting us right now, because it won't fly.
They are finally having to seriously engage the A/Q's. Sort of hard to make the case that they're "haboring terrorists" when they're killing them as best they can.
I also think that they've put themselves in a position where they will have to begin "reforming" the government. I think they're smart enough to see that they've got a real problem with their populace.
But go ahead anyway. I'm sure you will.
Over to you... I'll check it tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But go ahead anyway. I'm sure you will.
Over to you... I'll check it tomorrow.
Nah... going to bed too. Tomorrow I'll get right on it. ;)
-
let me say this nash. You talk so much about the US as "you" and "your" never "us" and "we"...... but I can guaran****ingtee you that if the "you" and the "your" you so freely babble about and are openly critical of ever ceases to exist then it will be "your" royal maple leaf bellybutton that is next in line buddy so you had better think hard about separating from your brother.
Ill hold back on giving you the finger but it is erect and ready to penetrate :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't EVEN try to make the case that the Saudi government is not helping us more than hurting us right now, because it won't fly.
Secretly sending money to al-qeada, rebuffing our oil contracts, signing those contracts with China instead, squashing human rights, threatening to go to the euro(which may become more than a threat).
Now how are they helping us?
They are more of a friend than an enemy, sorry, but that won't fly. You can sell that somewhere else, cause I'm not buying it.
BTW, read the thread "frightening email", it explains how the saudis view the rest of the world, and what they believe. Sure, they buddy up to us, until they can get along without us.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
let me say this nash. You talk so much about the US as "you" and "your" never "us" and "we"...... but I can guaran****ingtee you that if the "you" and the "your" you so freely babble about and are openly critical of ever ceases to exist then it will be "your" royal maple leaf bellybutton that is next in line buddy so you had better think hard about separating from your brother.
Ill hold back on giving you the finger but it is erect and ready to penetrate :D
I'm trying very hard not to think of Yeager's errect finger penetrating Nash's royal maple leaf ass.
ack!
Ravs
-
First, if you can show the Saudi Government itself is supporting Al-Q, please do so. Also show us how their killing of the Al-Q operatives in the last few days is "suppport".
Rebuffing oil contracts? Have you noticed the price of gasoline lately? Did you notice the market reaction when Saudi Arabia vowed to pump more oil with the aim of lowering crude oil prices from record highs? At this stage of the US economic recovery and world economic expansion I don't think that's working against us.
Signing contracts with China? Are you talking about the gas development contracts with China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., Russia's OAO Lukoil, Italy's Eni SpA and Spain's Repsol YPF SA?
If so, it wasn't just China. Do you know the details? Did US companies make competitive or lower bids and still lose the contract?
Or is this the Saudi way of saying they don't appreciate US pressure to reform... you know, the pressure you say doesn't exist?
Human Rights?
Human rights organization approved along with minor reforms (http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=481)
11 March, 2004
Collaborating with other international humanitarian human rights groups, the new Saudi organization will work together with the government to investigate and report on human rights violations, giving constant suggestions for how the country can foster a pro-human rights culture among its citizen body. Chairman Ubaid said he has met with Saudi Prince Abdallah and received a letter from King Fahd wishing him success on the venture.
Not much there, but it's a step in the right direction. And as that old dead guy said, "The longest journey starts with a single
step".
Wait, let me guess, that's not fast enough for you. We should threaten the Saudis with a good nuking unless they speed up reform, right?
Threatening to go to the Euro? So you think they should ignore intelligent financial management of their country, ignore doing what they think is best for the sake of what? Our friendship? If the Euro is a better investment, what would YOU do?
Or is this their response to US pressure to reform their system that you say doesn't exist?
You're thinking an unverified, untraceable E-Mail is a reliable source document? No comment, that says it all.
How are they helping us?
1. They are certainly helping our economy (although it may be short term) by lowering world oil prices.
2. They finally seem to be going after the A-Q operation in their country. I riskily assume they are doing much more with us behind the scenes to help track down and neutralize the A-Q organization and supporters.
3. They are taking the first baby steps in reform. That's not reallya specific help to us, but it's an improvement that will help in the long run.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And what does that have to do with the translation of books?
They do not translate books,because they wish to keep their people ignorant to what happens outside of their country.When oil rich countries have wealthy royalty,while keeping most of the people in a state of poverty,or poor countries in the region are ruled with an iron fist by a dictatorship,they have no desire to let their people see things are better elsewhere.
You mentioned you could probably find other countries that translate as little,and quite probably you are correct.But the question is;are they doing this in a deliberate attempt to keep their people in the dark,or merely because they may happen to be a very poor country?
-
Sixpence,I should have mentioned that you are correct that Saudi Arabia does it as well.That's why the article stated"entire region".
I'll put it to you this way;if the U.S. was not friendly to S.A.,the problem would STILL be there,and they would still be keeping their people ignorant.
The article was about problems in the region,not U.S. policy with Saudi Arabia.
-
The transaltion of books is such a minor point in the speach..... to "hone" in on that is missing the overall point by miles.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The transaltion of books is such a minor point in the speach..... to "hone" in on that is missing the overall point by miles.
Countries that support terrorism deliberately keeping their people ignorant of the outside world is hardly a minor point,imho at least.
-
It's almost the entire point, afaic.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's almost the entire point, afaic.
really?
-
The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab league
I thought this was the main point.
-
the root of the problem isn't that they're dysfunctional. that's the result.
-
Originally posted by Nash
the root of the problem isn't that they're dysfunctional. that's the result.
so where does the transaltion of books figure in that argument?
Are they dysfunctional because they don't translate a lot of books?
-
Originally posted by Toad
First, if you can show the Saudi Government itself is supporting Al-Q, please do so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47815-2004Jun16.html
"The Saudi government may have "turned a blind eye" to charities that funded al Qaeda but was not directly involved in financing the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to findings released yesterday by the Sept. 11 commission."
Lol, pretty convenient huh, Toad? Everyone seems to be turning a blind eye, huh? So they can "donate" to "charity", but not be linked to al-qaeda, that's good, that's real good.
"Al Qaeda nevertheless found "fertile fundraising ground in the Kingdom," where religious extremism flourishes and charitable giving is considered an obligation."
Ok Toad, let me get this straight, you still seemed convinced that Iraq had these huge stockpiles of WMD that were sent somewhere or hidden or whatever. But you look at what I show you about saudi arabia and their funding of al-qaeda and say there is no "proof" of that. The hypocrisy of it all is killing me.
Rebuffing oil contracts? Have you noticed the price of gasoline lately? Did you notice the market reaction when Saudi Arabia vowed to pump more oil with the aim of lowering crude oil prices from record highs? At this stage of the US economic recovery and world economic expansion I don't think that's working against us.
Oh yeah, it went down 20 cents after going up 70 cents, yeah, woohoo! BTW, this is from 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2561937.stm
If so, it wasn't just China. Do you know the details? Did US companies make competitive or lower bids and still lose the contract?
So let's see, we spend HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars securing THEIR region, then give contracts to someone else cause they gave them a lower bid. But you know something Toad, we now have an ace up our sleeve, WE NOW HAVE INFLUENCE OVER THE PRICE OF OIL IN A BIGGER RESERVE THAN THEIRS. This Iraq thing is working out pretty good now, huh?
Or is this the Saudi way of saying they don't appreciate US pressure to reform
So, in other words, their saying they will change their views is BS
... you know, the pressure you say doesn't exist?
Pressure in the form of hollow words is anything but pressure
Human Rights?
Human rights organization approved along with minor reforms (http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=481)
" the new Saudi organization will work together with the government" so, basically, one in the same
"Confirming that the organization will be guided by the country’s Islamic value system" Oh boy, so they will be making sure the women give to "charity"
Wait, let me guess, that's not fast enough for you. We should threaten the Saudis with a good nuking unless they speed up reform, right?
Well Toad, we invaded Iraq for alot less. But you know something Toad, i'm starting to like this Iraq thing. They want to give those contracts to someone else? That's ok, we will deal with our, er, the Iraqi government. We will drop the price of Iraqi oil and pump those wells dry! This is gonna be good.
Threatening to go to the Euro? So you think they should ignore intelligent financial management of their country, ignore doing what they think is best for the sake of what? Our friendship? If the Euro is a better investment, what would YOU do?
Do you remember when those saudis flew those planes into TWC? Do you remember what al-qaeda said to why they chose TWC? They were trying to ruin our economy, their main goal was to destroy our economy. Do you think if they ever succeed in bringing down the dollar, that saudi arabia would hesitate to make the switch?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/1010oilpriceeuro.htm
You seem to think it has no merit, I think it has more than you think.
Or is this their response to US pressure to reform their system that you say doesn't exist?
If you say hollow words, I will say there is no pressure. But if you say we now have control of Iraqi oil, than yes, I will give you that.
You're thinking an unverified, untraceable E-Mail is a reliable source document? No comment, that says it all.
Maybe not, but I think their obligated donations to "charity" does.
How are they helping us?
1. They are certainly helping our economy (although it may be short term) by lowering world oil prices.
Again, after raising it 70 cents and making a killing, they lower it 20 cents. It's the same thing over and over Toad, they do it all the time, nothing new here.
2. They finally seem to be going after the A-Q operation in their country.
Let me get this straight, al-qaeda is running around in their country and they do nothing, but one cuts an American's head off, so they kill that one cause he made them look bad. But where they did kill him, i'll give you that one.
I riskily assume they are doing much more with us behind the scenes to help track down and neutralize the A-Q organization and supporters.
I hope you are right Toad, I really do, but I don't trust them, not even close, they speak with a forked tongue. But you have inadvertently shown me the light. I am warming up to this Iraqi thing, seriously. I think there is a method to Bush's madness. Not only did we get rid of saddam, we're gonna stick it to the saudis. I think i'm coming around.
-
What have they done with those charities post-9/11? I think a lot of things changed around the world then.
Sure, there were charities in Saudi that supported A-Q. Beyond that, there are charities right here that contributed and are contributing to A-Q. There are charities that say they don't but do around the world. The UK comes to mind.
I don't think there's any direct connection post-9/11 with the Saudi government. If you have one, let's see it.
Would you be happier if the Saudis had decided NOT to pump more oil. They're one vote in OPEC. I think, looking back over the years, that they're one of the more moderating influences in that organization. Who's the oil guy here? Charon? Let's ask him.
And they've done things for us. It's a 60 year relationship with doors that swing both ways. I think we lost those contracts because they were P.O.'d about Bush's reform initiative. Before it got watered down at the G8, it was a pretty hot button issue with them. But, of course, get the Euros involved and it gets massaged so no one's feelings get hurt. ;)
BTW, you're dreaming if you think we're going to control Iraqi oil exports. They'll have their own government in two weeks and I'll be suprised if they let us call the tune on their oil. VERY suprised after the "drilling" the UN gave them up the rear on the "Oil for Food" deal. I bet they keep their hand on the pipeline spigot. Besides you don't want to sound like a "no war for oil" ijit do ya?
How do you know it's hollow words? You were willing to give SH 12 years and far more on failing to account for his WMD. You want instant reform in Saudi though right? You never did answer.. think we ought to give 'em 24 hours and then nuke 'em or what?
The new human rights commission is not "one in the same". Go look at who's on it. Did you think they were going to entirely abandon "Islamic values"? Boy, you sure don't ask for anything unreasonable do ya? Maybe they should convert to Christianity in 24 hours or we nuke 'em, right? Go SIX!
What I remember is this: it wasn't anyone in the Saudi government that flew into the WTC. Do you remember that had they brought down our economy the Saudis would have lost thiers too? They were essentially fully invested in the dollar. You blame them for diversifying? I have more "world stocks" in my portfolio lately too. Duh.
Your E-mail reference is still laughable.
Review OPEC procedure again; how they vote. The Saudis are one of the more moderate voters over history.
They haven't been "doing nothing" for quite some time. They're after A-Q and we have government to government links with them in this pursuit. The FBI is over there for sure and I assume CIA as well... working WITH them.
They've done better at killing them than we have I believe. At least about as well.
I didn't say I trusted the Saudis. This whole thing started when you took off on a tangent and rather than discuss what this speaker said, you chose to "Blame Saudi Arabia!!!> for everything.
No one said they were "good guys". No one said they were not involved in the Islamic Militant Mess. Even the speaker says they've got to be addressed as a problem.
But the idea that they're the sole problem is laughable. The idea that we can force immediate change on them is more laughable.
Ready to nuke 'em unless they agree to your ultimatums? Go SIX!
-
Originally posted by Toad
What have they done with those charities post-9/11?
I don't know, you tell me.
Sure, there were charities in Saudi that supported A-Q. Beyond that, there are charities right here that contributed and are contributing to A-Q. There are charities that say they don't but do around the world. The UK comes to mind.
So let me see, they got money from other places, so that makes it ok. Oh, and this al-qaeda that is alive and well you talk about saudi arabia, you think they are there just to hang out and have a BBQ? No, they are collecting for "charity". But wait, I can't "prove" that.
I don't think there's any direct connection post-9/11 with the Saudi government. If you have one, let's see it.
And there is no connection between al-qaeda and saddam, nor was there of WMD post UN resolution. No concrete "proof", yet you seem to believe that. You seem to believe only "proof" that fits your agenda Toad.
Would you be happier if the Saudis had decided NOT to pump more oil.
Huh?? They do it all the time!! Now that is laughable.
BTW, you're dreaming if you think we're going to control Iraqi oil exports.
Lol, you're kidding right? Pssst, we already do.
I bet they keep their hand on the pipeline spigot. Besides you don't want to sound like a "no war for oil" ijit do ya?
Listen, they may get their own government, but if you think our troops are coming home soon, don't count on it. If we leave, Iran and saudi influence are going to flood into Iraq(like they haven't already, eh?). And if you think we are going to let the likes of Iran or saudi arabia, or anyone else get control of that spigot, you're nuts.
How do you know it's hollow words?
Well, show me "proof" of reform. And if you say that commission again, then tell me what they have done.
I guess we should give them 24 hours and nuke them?
Well, to steal a line from Reagan "there you go again"
Did you think they were going to entirely abandon "Islamic values"?
You mean the ones where God comes down and kills all the Jews? Ahhh, yes!
Maybe they should convert to Christianity in 24 hours or we nuke 'em, right? Go SIX!
There you go again.
What I remember is this: it wasn't anyone in the Saudi government that flew into the WTC.
I don't think they were from Iraq either, nor were they iraqi citizens.
I have more "world stocks" in my portfolio lately too. Duh.
And if that stock continues to fail, you drop it like a hot potato. Duh.
Your E-mail reference is still laughable.
And so are bias speaches calling a whole people "dysfuntional"
Review OPEC procedure again; how they vote. The Saudis are one of the more moderate voters over history.
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2705562
"Nearly every OPEC producer, save Saudi Arabia, is already producing about as much oil as it can."
Now there are tidbits we can both use, however, you cannot deny they had the ability to keep those prices from going up in the first place.
They haven't been "doing nothing" for quite some time. They're after A-Q and we have government to government links with them in this pursuit. The FBI is over there for sure and I assume CIA as well... working WITH them.
In that article, it notes reports of saudis flooding over the border to fight in southern Iraq, but where I cannot give you concrete "proof" of that, I guess you do not believe it. Was there not a pipeline hit in southern Iraq?
I didn't say I trusted the Saudis. This whole thing started when you took off on a tangent and rather than discuss what this speaker said, you chose to "Blame Saudi Arabia!!!> for everything.
There you go again
I mentioned his speach was bias, mentioned why I thought it was bias. Then I mentioned how we partake in the ignorance of the people by supporting governments that keep their people ignorant. We can go from the shaw of Iran(talk about ruling with an iron fist), saddam, to an extent the financing of OBL. But the one we support now is saudi arabia, so that is the one I mention.
No one said they were "good guys". No one said they were not involved in the Islamic Militant Mess. Even the speaker says they've got to be addressed as a problem.
One of his valid points, as I said he had some.
But the idea that they're the sole problem is laughable.
I don't remember saying they were the sole problem, there are others, like Syria and Iran, but we do not support them, they are part of the "axis of evil". But hey, they do not sit on the largest oil reserves.
The idea that we can force immediate change on them is more laughable.
And to think we can win the war on terrorism without taking off the kid gloves is even more laughable.
Ready to nuke 'em unless they agree to your ultimatums? Go SIX!
And there you go again (in sarcastic Reagan voice)
-
There's an article out today from the US Treasury saying the Saudis are doing good things to cut down on the the flow of funds to A-Q. But then, you'll say the US Treasury is lying for Boooosh right?
No, I'm saying that you may have unreasonable expectations. It would seem Islamic charities AROUND THE WORLD are giving money to A-Q. That it's just not a Saudi problem alone. But hey, keep on playin "Blame Saudia Arabia!" on your MP3.
No, A-Q is trying to overthrow the government/royal family in Saudi. So it would seem we have a choice. Which side do YOU want to be on in that fight?
Try to keep up. The only things I've said here on this BBS (and anywhere else too) about A-Q and SH were:
1. The Czechs think there was a meeting between the Iraqi Intell guy and the hijackers.
2. It's pretty clear there was an A-Q related terrorist camp making ricin in Northern Iraq and I don't buy the "that area was out of SH's control" line. The no-fly zone prevented his fixed wing air ops there but did nothing to restrict his ground ops.
Dodged the question again. Would you be happier if the Saudis had NOT moderated oil prices right now?
What's laughable is that you apparently think the Saudis control OPEC.
No, we don't control Iraqi oil. It'll come clear to you after June 30 I guess. Maybe later for you I guess.
I think US troops will be there for quite a while. There's going to be a major battle for control of Iraq. But the idea that the US will dictate their oil policy is crazy. They'll sell on the world market like the rest of the producers. Their production levels are essentially fixed due to their oil infrastructure. Lastly, their delivery is uncertain and will be throughout the coming war.
LOL. Mr. "Immediate". Let's see.. they started in March 2004 and they haven't instituted a true democracy with equal rights for women. What's slowing them up, anyway?
You're the one that wants everything immediately. Sorry,chum. Life isn't like that, no matter how many huge problems Hollywood wraps up for you in 120 minutes.
There YOU go again. You spent your entire time in this thread singing "Blame Saudia Arabia" and now you start dragging in Iraq in nonsensical comparisons.
And so are bias speaches calling a whole people "dysfuntional"
Go back to Reading Comprehension 101. That's NOT what he said.
I'd say this part of YOUR link verifies my comment about the Saudis being moderates in OPEC:
This spare capacity allows the Saudis to moderate oil-price spikes.
They have done precisely this at various times: during the Iran-Iraq war, when output from both countries was disrupted; during and after the first Gulf war, when output from Iraq and Kuwait was lost; and last year, when civil strife in Venezuela and Nigeria curbed output from both countries on the eve of last year's invasion of Iraq (which itself disrupted Iraqi output).
Produce the juice
The Saudis remain keen to moderate prices by using their buffer capacity.
There's Palestinians and Islamics flooding over the Syrian border to fight in Iraq, there's Iranians flooding over that border to fight in Iraq. Again, no one said "there's no Islamic militants in Saudi Arabia". You, however, are the one saying the Saudis are the ONLY problem; in truth, they're a part of and typical of the problem as the guy who made the speech points out... if you read it for content.
Guess what.. I'll bet there's Iranian oil in American refineries right now!
And to think we can win the war on terrorism without taking off the kid gloves is even more laughable.
The idea that the way to get more cooperation from them is by Taking off the kid gloves" right now, as they are moving more and more against A-Q is beyond stupid. They're cooperating. So we should slap them harder, right?
Read the papers, man. The Saudis are farther "into the fight" than they've ever been and your suggestion is to threaten them and take off the kid gloves. Mr. Immediate.
-
Originally posted by Toad
There's an article out today from the US Treasury saying the Saudis are doing good things to cut down on the the flow of funds to A-Q. But then, you'll say the US Treasury is lying for Boooosh right?
There you go again
No, I'm saying that you may have unreasonable expectations. It would seem Islamic charities AROUND THE WORLD are giving money to A-Q. That it's just not a Saudi problem alone. But hey, keep on playin "Blame Saudia Arabia!" on your MP3.
Well, forgive me for high expectations, but we label syria and iran as part of an "axis of evil", we invade Iraq, saudi arabia gave more money to al-qaeda than anyone else, so how should I expect us to treat them??
No, A-Q is trying to overthrow the government/royal family in Saudi.
Oh really, can you show me proof of that? And the kind of proof you demand. And BTW, that would be just fine with me, I would like nothing better than a justification to invade saudi arabia. Does that overthrow seem like reality now? Like al-qaeda would bite the hand that feeds them and give us a chance to crush them at the same time. Talk about opportunity knocking, overthrow, don't get my hopes up.
The Czechs think there was a meeting between the Iraqi Intell guy and the hijackers.
And this isn't a reach? The Czechs think is a reason to go to war? Boy, you demand alot of proof from me, but the Czechs think is reliable. Geeez
It's pretty clear there was an A-Q related terrorist camp making ricin in Northern Iraq and I don't buy the "that area was out of SH's control" line.
It's pretty clear , huh? How clear? Clear proof? Or do the Czechs think this happened?
Dodged the question again. Would you be happier if the Saudis had NOT moderated oil prices right now?
According to the article I gave you, saudi arabia is the only opec country not producing to it's full capacity, so if they did, would not the price be lower? I don't know about you, but i've been paying two dollars a gallon for gas. And I am to be happy with this?
What's laughable is that you apparently think the Saudis control OPEC.
Are not you the one who said we can't ruffle their feathers because of their vote and influence in opec?
No, we don't control Iraqi oil. It'll come clear to you after June 30 I guess. Maybe later for you I guess.
Right here, right now, who controls that flow of oil?
I think US troops will be there for quite a while. There's going to be a major battle for control of Iraq. But the idea that the US will dictate their oil policy is crazy.
Well, is it crazy to say we will have strong influence with their oil policy? Or will you throw the black helicopter thing at me?
Their production levels are essentially fixed due to their oil infrastructure.
Well, and I could be wrong, I was to believe our tax dollars are being used to rebuild this infrastructure, so would it be too much to ask for a little in return?
LOL. Mr. "Immediate". Let's see.. they started in March 2004 and they haven't instituted a true democracy with equal rights for women. What's slowing them up, anyway?
And I guess getting them to give up on God coming down to kill all the jews is going to take some time, eh? Sorry for asking for so much so soon.
You're the one that wants everything immediately. Sorry,chum. Life isn't like that, no matter how many huge problems Hollywood wraps up for you in 120 minutes.
Well, we got all those troops half way around the world and conquered a country pretty quick, but I guess a firm stance with the saudis is going to take a 20 year plan
{B]You, however, are the one saying the Saudis are the ONLY problem[/B]
Again, show me where I said they are the only problem?
in truth, they're a part of and typical of the problem
Right, like syria and iran, so maybe we should start treating them the same, no? Listen Toad, they sit back and play mickey the dunce over and over, and I don't know about you, but I am getting a little tired of it.
Guess what.. I'll bet there's Iranian oil in American refineries right now!
Good, I hope we stole it.
The idea that the way to get more cooperation from them is by Taking off the kid gloves" right now, as they are moving more and more against A-Q is beyond stupid. They're cooperating. So we should slap them harder, right?
I guess time will, we will see. But in the meantime, if you meet a saudi prince, you can shake his hand, i'm not.
Read the papers, man.
I do, and not only is al-qaeda there, but thnx to saudi cooperation they are chopping American's heads off. But I guess to expect an immediate stop to that would be expecting too much
I've had enough Toad, you have your thoughts about it, I have mine. I hope you are right, really, cause if it were up to me, they would be included in that axis of evil, and maybe that is premature, but if things don't start to change, I am not the only one who is going to have those feelings.
-
Good to see that Americas best and brightest have been convinced they have to defend the people that attacked the WTC. And attack and invade those that didnt but blame them.
Time to launch the USS George Orwell. CVN 100
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Good to see that Americas best and brightest have been convinced they have to defend the people that attacked the WTC. And attack and invade those that didnt but blame them.
Time to launch the USS George Orwell. CVN 100
As usual, nobody but you knows what the hell you are talking about.
-
I know what Pongo's talking about...does that count? ;)
Ravs
-
Me too! Me too!
-
Originally posted by ravells
I know what Pongo's talking about...does that count? ;)
Ravs
If you want to be counted as ignornant as Pongo.
The US attacked those that attacked the WTC.
-
oh yes, those damn, Iraquuuuuuuueees.
Ravs :)
-
You dont have to understand me Nuke. Just understand the original writer of this thread.
He talkes about circles. Of course he is talking about in relation to Palistinian terrorism although he cant admit it.
But in regards to the WTC attacks. If the Saudis are the outer (benevolent) circle.. Who makes up the more sinsister inner circles?
Easy to see with Hamas and the Palistinians. But with Al Quida..Bit harder..You have the Saudis...and the Saudis..lol
And Saudis flying the planes incase you missed that. Getting into the states with special "no verification" saudi visas!
And then most of the upper level "Saudis" fleeing the US with special permision from Bush..
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Me too! Me too!
You see much but contribute little, grasshopper!
Ravs
-
Six, keep doing the ostrich. Any objective reading of the news indicates the Saudis are progressing. Not as fast as YOU like, of course, but there's progress. The Treasury report is just another example that, like all others contradicting you, you choose to ignore or disdain.
Like this one:
Saudi Arabia tells terrorists to repent or die (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=5475)
In a major annual policy address to the Shura Council, King Fahd recalled a promise of municipal elections, but did not set a date for the first ever polls in the country - in principle due to take place later this year.
"We will not allow a subversive group driven by deviant thinking to undermine this country's security or destabilize it," Fahd said at the opening of the fourth year of the third legislative term of the 120-member council in the Red Sea city of Jeddah.
See? Steps in the right direction. Now, ignore it, change the subject or impugn it.. but it's still there. It's happening whether you choose to notice or not.
The Czechs think is a reason to go to war?
I've never said anything like that on this board or anywhere else. Are you making it a statement of your belief? Or what?
If you attribute that to me, you're simply making it up.
It's pretty clear , huh? How clear? Clear proof? Or do the Czechs think this happened?
No, it's reasonably well documented. Here, educate yourself;
Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq (http://osborn-scientific.com/PDF/Positive_test_for_terror_toxins_in_Iraq.htm)
SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 — MSNBC.com tests reveal evidence of the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum at a laboratory in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training camp by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network.
Oil Production. They've increased production to lower and stabilize the price. There is a limit to how much production the world's refineries can handle. Supposedly that limit has been reached.
Here read this again:
Saudi Arabia and oil (http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2705562)
Even more important is Saudi Arabia's role as swing producer. Unlike other countries, the Saudis keep several million barrels per day (bpd) of idle capacity on hand for emergencies. Today Saudi Arabia is the only country with much spare capacity available (see chart 1), though the precise amount is a matter of intense debate. Nansen Saleri, an official at Saudi Aramco, the country's state-owned oil company, will say only that Saudi output will rise in June to about 9m bpd, and that the country can raise its output above 10m bpd “rapidly”.
This spare capacity allows the Saudis to moderate oil-price spikes. They have done precisely this at various times: during the Iran-Iraq war, when output from both countries was disrupted; during and after the first Gulf war, when output from Iraq and Kuwait was lost; and last year, when civil strife in Venezuela and Nigeria curbed output from both countries on the eve of last year's invasion of Iraq (which itself disrupted Iraqi output).
Produce the juice
The Saudis remain keen to moderate prices by using their buffer capacity. Last week, when some OPEC ministers rebuffed a Saudi proposal to raise output quotas at the Beirut meeting, they offered to lift production unilaterally. That might cool prices a bit, but would also leave the Saudis with less spare capacity to prevent a further oil shock.
Are not you the one who said we can't ruffle their feathers because of their vote and influence in opec?
LOL! Nope. I said perhaps some of their previous actions with respect to oil/gas contracts are caused by the pressure we're putting on them to reform. You know, that pressure you apparently think doesn't exist. That must be what you're talking about. I think I took the position we've already ruffled their feathers with the reform talk.
Right here, right now, who controls that flow of oil?
State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO)
Here, educate yourself:
Iraq (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)
Iraqi oil sales and exports currently are being handled by SOMO, under CPA supervision. SOMO operations were seriously disrupted by war and turmoil during 2003, but the organization has now been reconstituted and has resumed many of its operations. On June 5, 2003, SOMO issued its first oil sales tender since the war started, for 8 million barrels of Kirkuk crude stored in tanks at Ceyhan and 2 million barrels stored at Basra. Dozens of companies placed bids for the oil, with winners including ChevronTexaco, Cepsa, ENI, Repsol, Total, and Tupras. Bids for the Kirkuk oil reportedly ranged around $2.70-$3.30 per barrel below dated Brent (f.o.b. Ceyhan). On June 22, a tanker arrived at Ceyhan to load the first oil since March 20, 2003, when the 600,000-barrel tanker "Caithness" completed loading one day after the outbreak of war. On July 3, SOMO issued its second spot tender, for 8 million barrels of Basra Light.
I think they're eager to regain their sovereignity and I think they're going to "flex their muscles" to show everyone they HAVE their sovereignity back. I think this will apply to the oil especially.
And I guess getting them to give up on God coming down to kill all the jews is going to take some time, eh? Sorry for asking for so much so soon.
You ought to be. If you think 1000 years of history and animosity are going to be overcome in your 120 minute Hollywood window... you need to rethink.
Well, we got all those troops half way around the world and conquered a country pretty quick, but I guess a firm stance with the saudis is going to take a 20 year plan
My oh my! Is Six advocating the invasion of Saudi Arabia? War for Oil?
Again, show me where I said they are the only problem?
Reread your own posts. Every one is basically a beechfest against the Saudis.
Right, like syria and iran, so maybe we should start treating them the same, no?
NO! Because they are NOT like Syria and Iran. We've had a mutually beneficial relationship with them since WW2. They're helping us right now, even if you are too blind to see it. Both Syria and Iran, OTOH, are allowing/encouraging Islamic militants to cross into Iraq with deadly results for our troops. The Iranians, in particular; I think if details of the messages we intercepted and read are ever release it'll be eye-popping stuff.
No, we probably bought Iranian oil through a middleman. Possibly without even knowing it.
I guess time will, we will see. But in the meantime, if you meet a saudi prince, you can shake his hand, i'm not.
In your conclusion jumping, one you appear to have jumped to is that I like the Saudis and what they've done. Not the case. Rather it's Henry K's Realpolitik. At the moment, their government is helping us and we need the help. You just can't see that.
thnx to saudi cooperation they are chopping American's heads off.
Cooperation? You mean some of the Saudi police loaned them uniforms and such? Hey.. did you forget the 101 trooper that fragged his officers right before the war started?
They aren't the only ones are they?
Sgt. Asan Akbar rolled a grenade into each of three tents of sleeping officers and senior NCOs of the 101st Airborne Division. Then he allegedly shot the soldiers with an automatic weapon as they fled from their tents. Two of them, a major and a captain, died, and 14 others were injured....
...Akbar, a convert to Islam, reportedly said when he was captured: "You guys are coming into our countries and you're going to rape our women and kill our children."
Yeah, they're infiltrated. So are we. Just how exactly do you expect them... or us.. to put an "an immediate stop to that "? Enlighten me. Please.
but if things don't start to change, I am not the only one who is going to have those feelings.
They have started to change. Very slowly. So slowly you obviously can't see it through your set opinions.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Good to see that Americas best and brightest have been convinced they have to defend the people
Who's defending them?
The guy that gave the speech made it clear they are a part of the problem.
Haven't seen anyone disagree with that yet.
Suprised you missed it. Skimming everything again?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
He talkes about circles. Of course he is talking about in relation to Palistinian terrorism although he cant admit it.
No, he isn't. You really should actually read it all before you make comments like that.
-
Yes he is. I did read it.
Toad your heads in the sand if you dont see that Saudi arabia has been the bigest threat to the US in the last 20 years.
Just look at who attacked you. That guy is trying to drill up some "enemy of our enemy" support when his enemy is self created.
Lots of his stuff on the arabs is interesting. But his lack of introspective is telling.
same old ground. If you dont like the way that I dissagree with idiots that you apperenlty disagree with, why dont you disagree with them.
-
food for thought
"our God"{christian} (take that as you will) says basically be honest
"They're God" says "its ok to lie if your makeing an agreement with anyone of not our faith"
It ain't about any one country, it's a way of life
and SA (I think, not that that counts for anything) is is making a Effort
What else can you ask for?
-
Here you go, Pongo. These are the guy's main points on the problem.
Do you agree or disagree. Just keep it simple, one word for each, either "agree" or "disagree".
I'll go first. I'd like to see your answers, as well as Nash, Six and Seeker.
But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to realize that you are in a war
AGREE
In my humble opinion, the number one danger to the world today is Iran and its regime.
DISAGREE
In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the financial resources of the terror conglomerate.
AGREE
It is crucial to stop Saudi and other financial support of the outer circle, which is the fertile breeding ground of terror.
AGREE
Above all, never surrender to terror.
AGREE
Now go ahead, let's see how much we really differ about the guy's conclusions.
-
"What is behind the suicide murders? Money, power and cold-blooded murderous incitement, nothing else."
As I have been saying. I dissagree with this and its one of his centeral points. Isreali occupation and oppression of the palistinians is behind the Suicide bombers that they face. Period.
"Suicide murders also have nothing to do with poverty and despair. The poorest region in the world, by far, is Africa. It never happens there."
I dissagree with this. If you parked a rich city like telavev beside a slum in centeral africa then put an army in place to keep the people in the slum..you would have all kinds of interesting things happen. poverty is a big part of this. Especialy poverty in contrast to success.
"An incredible number of people in the Arab world believe that September 11 never happened, or was an American provocation or, even better, a Jewish plot.
"
This man should not cast stones. He is being dishonest himself. A simular % of americans believed a year after 9/11 that it was Iraq that was responsible. Like I said,people should not cast stones.
"A woman walks into an Israeli restaurant in mid-day, eats, observes families with old people and children eating their lunch in the adjacent tables and pays the bill. She then blows herself up, killing 20 people, including many children, with heads and arms rolling around in the restaurant. She is called "martyr" by several Arab leaders and "activist" by the European press. Dignitaries condemn the act but visit her bereaved family and the money flows.
"
The man starts his speach with a lie that he is not talking about isreal. But of course one of the centeral stories in his speach is about isreal. THe whole diatrabe that follows is about isreal. You say Im imagining that he is talking about isreal because of some bias of mine. He is talking about isreal and trying to graft the specifics of the palistinian uprising to apply to al quida. They are different things. They are orginized differently.
Much of what he says I agree with. The sad state of the Arab world. The poor leadership they have and how thier religion seems designed to make sure they have poor, brutal leaders. Thier conservatism cripples them from advancing into the modern world.
But
The man altough seemingly very brilliant is also very blind as to the obvios reasons that Isreal is in the situation they are in right now. By not honestly drawing attention to it he lies in exaclty the same way that he so methodically accuses his enemies of. Poetic I think.
Make no mistake. Men like this who can eloquently dismiss the suffering imposed by his country on others are a HUGE part of the problem.
All he has to do is say " how would isreali respond if forced by arms into the situtation that the palistinains are in?"
But he cannot. Its really the centeral point of his whole speach.
If you dont believe me, believe the weak minded who are its main target.
"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab league
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this was the main point."
So argue with Nuke. He thought it was the main point too.
-
:rofl
I knew you couldn't do it!
Tell you what, you go ahead and do the agree/disagree thing on his proposed "course of action" (is that semantically more pleasing to you than "problem? ;) ).
You do that and I'll adress your last line by line. And you know I actually will address what you said.
-
I dont have to clarrify any further in what way I aggree with him and in what ways I think hes being dishonest. You want to cheer the whole thing cause there are some great points and observations in there. You accused me of skimming it. I have been called a dolt by some here who obviosly dont understand the situation at all and dont want to.
my above explanation is tiresome to me cause it should be self evident to a man as smart as yourself that the author is being dishonest. It apperently is not self evident to you. So lets drop it You cheer him on and Ill be disapointed in his dishonesty.
Nuke will never know the difference.
-
Thank you, Mr. Pongo. You have typified the liberal attitude towards discussion, IMO.
"No further questions, your honor."
-
More like "No further answers, your honor. It's obvious you're never going to get it."
That's just my take, but hey.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thank you, Mr. Pongo. You have typified the liberal attitude towards discussion, IMO.
"No further questions, your honor."
Does that make you feel better? Why dont you just type..
U r 0wn3d!
deeeethhh to booooshhh
Its a bbs not a de programming service. All I can do is tell you the truth no matter how convoluted and desperate your efforts to cling to your programing.
How the credible have fallen.
-
Nah, it's more like "I'm not going to discuss anything unless it's on my terms. I'm not interested in a free exchange of ideas."
-
That is not the case at all. You contribute no ideas. I told you from the begining that this gentleman was being dishonest yet you said I thought that was because I was biased. You present what you aggree with I present what I disagree with. You never once. Even once even try to address my major issue with the guy. You just keep babbleing in circles staying close to the post your tied too.
Your not freely exchaning ideas. If the gentleman was here to defend his own ideas it might be interesting. But discussing it with a closed minded automon thats has to live by "ctrl c" "ctrl p" is just boring.
-
What, afraid to show your opinion on his proposed "course of action"?
To daring?
-
Ya too daring for me.
-
Toad, in the post you made (and asked for my opinion) that had the "agree" "disagree" stuff, I agreed and disagreed with all the things you agreed and disagreed with.
But it seemed obvious to me. For eg.:
"But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to realize that you are in a war"
or
"Above all, never surrender to terror."
Sure, fine...
It seems to me your questions would produce more interesting answers if you began to explore who we are at war with and why. THEN apply those things and see if they're getting done the way your author proposes.
-
oops. double.
-
Nash you and I then agree on the speaker's proposed "course of action"?
But you don't agree with his reasoning/theories that get him to that point?
-
Nash you and I then agree on the speaker's proposed "course of action"?
But you don't agree with his reasoning/theories that get him to that point?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nash you and I then agree on the speaker's proposed "course of action"?
But you don't agree with his reasoning/theories that get him to that point?
Some think Iraq should have been invaded due to WMD. Others think it was human rights violations. Both agree on the war.
Do you find that unusual?
-
Not finding anything.
Looking for a place to actually start this discussion. ;)
-
Hehe. :)
Hows about what I asked above?:
"It seems to me your questions would produce more interesting answers if you began to explore who we are at war with and why. [edit - and who we aren't at war with and why not, and]THEN apply those things and see if they're getting done the way your author proposes."
Maybe that's a dead end too... I dunno. Anything there?
-
Well, four pages into this, maybe there's somebody to discuss what this guys said at long last.
We see his "course of action" pretty much in the same way apparently.
Now, do you want to go through his speech and look at his reasoning?
Or do you want to make up a laundry list of friends and foes and apply his proposed actions?
BTW, since neither of us view Iran as #1, I'm curious as to who you would list.
After you, Alphonse!
-
I agree with everything you just said (the premise).
As to the laundry list, I'll take your CIC's and let's see if it holds water:
Any country that harbours terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Any country that harbours terrorists.
not as simple as that.
-
Oh?
-
Define "harbours".
IE:
I believe some of the A-Q came in thru Canada. Did you guys "harbour" them?
-
Yes, if you think about it.
We should be going after the main threats and most practicle targets first and with the most effort.
I think I see where you are going with "any" nation that harbors terrorists.
-
"if a country harbors terrorists, the country's leadership will be considered as guilty as a terrorists."
"Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. "
- Bush
Toad: "Define harbours"
I think we just broke out of some pretty murky waters here in this thread. Do you now want to get into semantics? If so, explain first what you think Bush meant by "harbours". If it's as you suggest, do you mean to say that Bush recommended attacking itself? Hopefully we can agree on what he meant.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"if a country harbors terrorists, the country's leadership will be considered as guilty as a terrorists."
"Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. "
- Bush
Toad: "Define harbours"
I think we just broke out of some pretty murky waters here in this thread. Do you now want to get into semantics? If so, explain first what you think Bush meant by "harbours". If it's as you suggest, do you mean to say that Bush recommended attacking itself? Hopefully we can agree on what he meant.
what Bush said is correct.
-
Ahhhh.. Nash... how can you discuss what you want if we don't agree on "harbours"?
Did Canada harbour A-Q before 9-11? Have any A-Q passed through Canada on the way to the US? Is that harbour?
Does "harbour" mean the government condones and supports the presence of A-Q terrorists?
Or are we going to say England "harbours" terrorists because IRA operate in that country?
Did Spain "harbour" A-Q before the train strike?
Not trying for semantics, just want to know what the baseline is.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Did Canada harbour A-Q before 9-11? Have any A-Q passed through Canada on the way to the US? Is that harbour?
Canada is not responsable for whom the US border guards allow into the US:rolleyes:
-
Fair enuff.
For one thing though, none of the Al-Q who attacked on 9/11 came through Canada that I'm aware of. (maybe I'm wrong?)
But....
The CSIS is on top of their game when it comes to suspected terrorists and Canada. We just don't allow that nonsense.
Same with your FBI/CIA.
So while terrorists have used my country in the past as a sort of means of transit, it's much MUCH more difficult.
Again, same kind of thing with the US.
But in BOTH cases, if yours or mine's country had even the SUSPICION that there were actually a healthy terrorist community repleat with camps and a recruitment organization.... be it in Montana or Manitoba, it would be over in a matter of hours.
So while there may be the odd terrorist in the US or Canada, it is a far different thing that harbouring.
While one is never sure just exactly WHAT Bush is talking about in any real terms....
By saying "harbouring".... and by making a distinction between that and "supporting" and "protecting"... I'm gonna say that it means "Being aware of terrorists within your borders and not doing shreck all about it". Sorta.
We okay with that?
-
I just wish you guys would spell it right, it's harbor. ;)
-
Hhmm... yer right. It's Bush's word, and he's a yank.
I'll pull the "u"... but don't say I didn't do anything for ya.
-
While yer feelin' generous how about no more "u" in color either? :)
-
Harboring means providing a safe heaven or refuge or secretly sheltering, as in criminals. This implies knowingly doing so.
-
Heh, in my line of work I have to write that word a lot.
It took me years in NY before I finally broke the "u" habit.
And just as I did, I moved to Canada.
Now it's a mess. Sometimes I use "u" and sometimes I don't and sometimes I'm so paranoid that I throw a "u" in where it doesn't even closely belong just to cover my bases.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now it's a mess. Sometimes I use "u" and sometimes I don't and sometimes I'm so paranoid that I throw a "u" in where it doesn't even closely belong just to cover my bases.
I knouw what you meaun!;)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Canada is not responsable for whom the US border guards allow into the US:rolleyes:
Nope, didn't say they were.
I was under the impression that Canada is responsible for whom it lets into Canada though.
Wat you tink, eh?
-
Oh, wait..... maybe you're saying you grow your own A-Q up there? If so, I'm sorry for that last one.
-
I thought the US was responsible for who it lets in or wait maybe you grow your own down there **SLAP** don't derail yourself.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Fair enuff.
For one thing though, none of the Al-Q who attacked on 9/11 came through Canada that I'm aware of. (maybe I'm wrong?)
Two words: Ahmed Ressam
The CSIS is on top of their game when it comes to suspected terrorists and Canada. We just don't allow that nonsense.
I think all agencies in about every country stepped up their game after 9/11, don't you? But before that we all probably had Ahmed Ressams running around. Most likely we all still do.
By saying "harbouring".... and by making a distinction between that and "supporting" and "protecting"... I'm gonna say that it means "Being aware of terrorists within your borders and not doing shreck all about it". Sorta.
It's nebulous but that's fair enough. This whole thing is pretty much a "shadow war" so there's going to be some "nebulosity" no matter what.
So we both agree then that if a government is pursuing and killing A-Q's they're probably not "harbouring" or even "harboring" them?
;) <---- and you know why, too.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I thought the US was responsible for who it lets in or wait maybe you grow your own down there **SLAP** don't derail yourself.
I would agree to a policy of not letting any middle easterners or illegal Mexicans in myself, would solve most of our problems.
would allow only Israelis in from middle east..... nobody worries about them causing problems
-
Originally posted by Nash
I thought the US was responsible for who it lets in or wait maybe you grow your own down there **SLAP** don't derail yourself.
Oh no. Clearly they slipped past our guys. No doubt about it.
Just as clearly, that was AFTER they slipped past YOUR guys.
Now, in the "good old days" the US/Canada border was pretty much a formality. It was essentially an open border. It's still WAY more open a border than either the US or Canada presents to travelers from countries outside of North America, wouldn't you agree?
I mean both YOUR guys and OUR guys gave a much closer look to people arriving from "across the oceans" than they did to folks crossing the "no border" border between the US and Canada.
But, let's not derail ourselves over a really stupid comment from a drive by poster, ok?
Ball's on your side of the net.
-
Now Nuke, if you want to play, pick up a racket. We're going to finally discuss this guy's speech. Maybe.
First off, see how many of his proposed solutions you agree or disagree with in the upthread post of same.
And let's not get diverted into this border thing just cuz toronto was bored and didn't have anything to contribute.
OK?
-
Yes.... I know why :)
But tell me, (and I'll grant you that this is an isolated case, yet it is to me quite telling; the reason I use/pursue it).
Bush concocted his doctrine a couple of years ago. Yet the only pursuing of Al-Q I've heard of by them happened a week ago post-death of an American.
Am I getting at nothing? Can you throw me a bone here? Or will you maintain that the Saudis have been a loyal-anti-terrorist-harboring-team-player?
I would LOVE to move past this...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now Nuke, if you want to play, pick up a racket. We're going to finally discuss this guy's speech. Maybe.
First off, see how many of his proposed solutions you agree or disagree with in the upthread post of same.
And let's not get diverted into this border thing just cuz toronto was bored and didn't have anything to contribute.
OK?
Toad, you played footsie with the likes of Pongo and xtoronto and allowed them to stray off topic for a couple pages when you should have ignored their ignorant posts. ;)
I actually was on topic from the begining, now I'm playing footsie.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now Nuke, if you want to play, pick up a racket. We're going to finally discuss this guy's speech. Maybe.
First off, see how many of his proposed solutions you agree or disagree with in the upthread post of same.
And let's not get diverted into this border thing just cuz toronto was bored and didn't have anything to contribute.
OK?
Plus you rebuke me after getting into the "border" thing yourslef.
jeeze.
Now, in the "good old days" the US/Canada border was pretty much a formality. It was essentially an open border. It's still WAY more open a border than either the US or Canada presents to travelers from countries outside of North America, wouldn't you agree?
I mean both YOUR guys and OUR guys gave a much closer look to people arriving from "across the oceans" than they did to folks crossing the "no border" border between the US and Canada.
-
I'm not particularly fond of the Saudis as anyone who has actually read what I've said in this thread knows.
I have said in this thread that at this time they are helping us more than hurting us in "THE WAR ON TERROR" or TWAMI as Sandman would have it.
Now, yeah, they're pursuing and killing A-Q's as best they know how right now. Why? Because it has apparently dawned on the Elite that guys like Osama really don't like THEM either. I bet there's a little Royal Sweat running down some less than stable backbones. They're beginning to see that after A-Q runs the infidels out of the Saudi peninsula, the Royal family will be the next target.
And actually, I think they were moving against A-Q in a fairly lackadaisical manner for a while. As you know, there is dissension in the Royal Family about this very issue.
Now, how long ago did they start to do anything at all? I'd say 9/11. They have (most likely grudgingly) cooperated with our Treasury, CIA, FBI and NSA types since then. Wholehearted cooperation? Probably not at first, but as the danger to themselves becomes more apparent, they've been moving a little faster.
Prior to 9/11? They were dangerously close to the folks Bush said he'd go after. I'd agree with that.
But since then, they've helped out enough to stay one step ahead of the hangman. I think they're coming round now though through what used to be termed "enlightend self-interest".
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, you played footsie with the likes of Pongo and xtoronto and allowed them to stray off topic for a couple pages when you
Don't forget Six! I played footsie with him too!
I'm interested in free discussion; I don't require that everything be on my terms. I'll discuss on anyone's terms as long as it's interesting. Some are more interesting than others, of course.
You're right; I'm sorry. That was my attempt to get back on track after toronto got his tit for tat.
OK, let's stay on track. Still interested in your agree/disagree positons. Go ahead with them.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And let's not get diverted into this border thing just cuz toronto was bored and didn't have anything to contribute.
OK?
not as bored as busy preparing stuff for a meeting...
my 2 cents is I think you two came to a reasonable perspective...I for one always thought (for granted) that the reference to "those who harbour them" was directly intended to point out the middle east players and N Korea.
As far as nuke goes...He's a Beatle fan...he's not all bad:aok
-
Well...
(and I admit we're again getting a bit off track which is basically my fault... we're still discussing the ground rules it seems which is okay)....
It wasn't until I put into words "terrorists camps in Montana/Manitoba would be gone in a matter of hours" that it really became clear to me.
Because they really would be. It's not that big of a mystery. It would play out over the weekend on CNN, it would involve helicopters and hellfires, and that'd be it.
Yet...
There's a certain sense of (what's your word?) nebulousness (?) when it comes to the mid-east. It's the reason some prop up certain poli-sci profs as having insider knowledge . But Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are a good deal smaller than the US and Canada.
Yet we're taking care of our *****. If they can't, they aren't trying.
By not trying to exterminate terrorists within their borders, they are harboring terrorists within their borders.
Chasing a beheader through the streets and shooting him in the back doesn't mean yer making strides against this.
This was only last week. There've been no examples from ANY mid-east country in this regard for.... well since WHEN?
Yet... "if a country harbors terrorists, the country's leadership will be considered as guilty as a terrorists."
That's clearly not happening.
Now to bring it on home, we have:
"But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to realize that you are in a war"
Either we don't realize we're in a war..... OR.... we do realize we're in a war but we don't know who we are at war WITH.
Both equally as crazy. And we STILL can't do anything with the author's proposed methods because we CLEARLY don't have a target it would seem.
-
Certain poli sci profs were used as an example of what an actual Saudi thinks about whether reform pressure is actually there. That particular one thinks there's so much pressure it amounts to a "regime change" attitude. That's all the quote was ever intended to show but it was never evaluated in that light.
There has been US pressure on the Saudis to reform. The evidence is there, particularly in some of the "FU" comments made by the "religious" faction of the House of Saud.
Obviously, recent events (in the last year or so) have put internal pressure on the ruling monarchy to reform.
Terror attacks put pressure on rulers (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/8996923.htm?1c)
Prince Saud al Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said in an interview Wednesday that the protracted terror campaign linked to al-Qaida was uniting Saudis behind reforms outlined by Saudi leaders in May 2003, days after the first terrorist attacks in the kingdom.
“We are not experimenting with reform,” said Prince Saud, a graduate of Princeton who is considered one of the most pro-Western members of the Saudi royal family. “We are moving with all deliberate speed.”
If they can't, they aren't trying.
Let's agree that they operate under slightly different real-world restrictions than the US and Canada, OK?
If either of our countries put an Alpha Strike on an A-Q camp in North America, there'd be rejoicing and happy wallowing in it on all our news networks. There'd be no negative religious reaction.
In SA, that not true. There clearly is a militant Islamic presence in SA and there is support amongst Muslim clerics and faithful for radical Islam.
I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't go after A-Q; rather, they have to do so a bit more carefully than we do. They have negative political considerations to deal with that are non-existent in our popoulations.
By not trying to exterminate terrorists within their borders, they are harboring terrorists within their borders.
By not actively hunting them with a level of enthusiasm judged by whom?
I agree basically with what you are saying, but where how do you determine at what level of enthusiasm we should say they are cooperating?
Imagine for a second Bush announcing "Country X is not pursuing A-Q with enough enthusiasm to satisfy us. A state of war now exists between the US and Country X."
Tell me what the UN/SC would say if we went there and made the "lack of enthusiasm" case for going to war with SA.
This all has to be tempered with reality, a knowledge of what's possible and what's not possible.
Further, even in WW2, enemies have to be prioritized. For example, FDR made the decision to put the most effort against Germany with the Pacific theater taking a decidedly lesser role with far less support.
Now, it's pretty obvious how our "two major wars at the same time" military is stretched thin by Afghanistan and Iraq on top of oru other commitments like South Korea and Bosnia.
So, even if we wanted to try and make the "War on SA" case in the UN/SC, I seriously doubt we could do it right now.
What then? Well, as long as they are moving the way you want them to go, why not wait see if they'll improve their "level of enthusiasm" to something acceptable?
Especially if they are helping you economically by stabilizing oil prices, another key factor in your ability to wage war at all, anywhere.
Either we don't realize we're in a war..... OR.... we do realize we're in a war but we don't know who we are at war WITH.
I think you can make the case for both of those statements. It may not be "black and white".
I doubt the American people fully realize the extent of this war. Perhaps another major strike or two in the US will focus the population.
Also, it's more than clear that the rest of the world doesn't see this as a widespread war against Western Civilization. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I think the terrorists themselves will have to confirm that. I also think that will take time. If they enjoy success, I'm sure they will dare greater things for Allah.
But also consider one other addendum to your statement. Perhaps we (the government) knows we're at war and knows exactly who we're at war with. Yet, they have to prioritize their threats and select appropriate courses of action for each. Given that the Saudis are beginning to move against A-Q, beginning to see the threat to their own royal necks, perhaps the government has decided to lower their priority and see if perhaps the need for war can be reduced/eliminated.
In short, just because you have a long list of enemies, that doesn't mean you should attack them all equally or even immediately. Some may need immediate direct military force. Some may be neutralized in other ways.
Don't have a target? I disagree. Right now, the major effort is in Iraq. Whether that was the best choice or smartest move is obviously debatable and has been beaten to death on this BBS. The secondary effort is in Afghanistan where we continue to hunt OBL, a worthy target IMO. Then I'm sure there are other more clandestine political and minor military operations going on that we don't read about in the news.
So, we have a target. I suspect as time goes by, some targets will be sufficiently neutralized and then attention will turn towards others that are currently further down the list.
-
"Yet... "if a country harbors terrorists, the country's leadership will be considered as guilty as a terrorists."
Like Orlando Bosch?
-
1990, Bush Sr.
It was wrong, even 14 years ago.
-
Heh, I'm sorry Toad but I'm afraid I can't find much here to disagree with you about...
The whole thing is a bit frustrating... including the current situation (which starts with an "I" and rhymes with sidetrack).
I think you're right... it's almost as if folks need another ugly reminder.
-
You're one of the few people here that can participate in rational debate.
Let's see... I should make that a backhanded compliment as other folks have shown me how to do..........
"When you have a mind to do so."
There, that should cover it.
-
Likewise, you know.
-
I can feel the love :D
-
ah... nevermind. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
1990, Bush Sr.
It was wrong, even 14 years ago.
And it's still wrong today, what was that again about the leaders of countries that harbour terrorist?
-
So you think the right move would be to overturn the pardon and jail him?