Should we Attack Saudi Arabia

[revelarts]

You know i don't want to attack anyone But if we're being consistent.


WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists

Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states' failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

Saudi Arabia (http://www.theguardian.com/world/saudiarabia) is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.
"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073)," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan (http://www.theguardian.com/world/pakistan) and Afghanistan.
"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.
Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar (http://www.theguardian.com/world/qatar), Kuwait (http://www.theguardian.com/world/kuwait) and the United Arab Emirates (http://www.theguardian.com/world/united-arab-emirates).
The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.
The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.
One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/220186).
Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.
Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/209234) and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.
Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".
Washington is critical of the Saudi refusal to ban three charities classified as terrorist entities in the US. "Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas," she said.
There has been some progress. This year US officials reported that al-Qaida (http://www.theguardian.com/world/al-qaida)'s fundraising ability had "deteriorated substantially" since a government crackdown. As a result Bin Laden's group was "in its weakest state since 9/11" in Saudi Arabia.
Any criticisms are generally offered in private. The cables show that when it comes to powerful oil-rich allies US diplomats save their concerns for closed-door talks, in stark contrast to the often pointed criticism meted out to allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Instead, officials at the Riyadh embassy worry about protecting Saudi oilfields from al-Qaida attacks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175700).
The other major headache for the US in the Gulf region is the United Arab Emirates. The Afghan Taliban and their militant partners the Haqqani network earn "significant funds" through UAE-based businesses (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242756), according to one report. The Taliban extort money from the large Pashtun community in the UAE (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/223330), which is home to 1 million Pakistanis and 150,000 Afghans. They also fundraise by kidnapping Pashtun businessmen based in Dubai or their relatives.
"Some Afghan businessmen in the UAE have resorted to purchasing tickets on the day of travel to limit the chance of being kidnapped themselves upon arrival in either Afghanistan or Pakistan," the report says.




U.S. Senators Say Saudi Gov't Links to 911 bombers,


surprise surprise surprise, Say it anit so,

Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
George W. Bush (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewbu164861.html)




Rym Momtaz and Trevor J. Ladd report on ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senators-saudi-arabia-linked-911/story?id=15827925#.T1AXz8w5ly4)
Two former Senators who led inquiries into the 9/11 attacks have issued sworn statements that they believe the government of Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the fight on terrorism, may have played a role in the terror attacks ten years ago.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” said former Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Graham led a 2002 Congressional probe of the attacks.
Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who served on the 9/11 Commission, said in a separate affidavit that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued.”....









....Two former Senators who led inquiries into the 9/11 attacks (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ten-years-ago-today-countdown-911/story?id=14191671) have issued sworn statements that they believe the government of Saudi Arabia (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/saudi-crown-prince-counter-terror-veteran/story?id=14837222), a key U.S. ally in the fight on terrorism, may have played a role in the terror attacks ten years ago. ...

"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," said former Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Graham led a 2002 Congressional probe of the attacks. .....

Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who served on the 9/11 Commission, said in a separate affidavit that "significant questions remain unanswered" about the role of Saudi institutions. "Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued." ....

Lawyers for the Saudis have moved to have the affidavits disallowed. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News. The Saudi embassy also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Saudis have always denied any connection to the 9/11 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pennsylvania were Saudi. ....

According to Sen. Graham, open questions include possible financial support of al Qaeda by Saudi charities, and the role of a Saudi resident of California who was in contact with both the hijackers and Saudi officials. "There was a direct line," wrote Graham, "between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia, and [a] Saudi government agent living in the United States, Omar al Bayoumi, provided direct assistance to September 11th hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar."

"Finally someone who knows some of the truth about 9/11 is standing up and saying 'wait a minute, we didn't give those guys the all clear' as Saudi Arabia has been saying for several years," said Sharon Premoli of Vermont, who was in the World Trade Center when it was struck. "Exonerated, I don't think so!"
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senato...5#.T1K3I8yS7qS (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senators-saudi-arabia-linked-911/story?id=15827925#.T1K3I8yS7qS)



Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
George W. Bush (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewbu146548.html)


Since Bush and Obama both knew about this and haven't gone after them.... aren't they Guilty of.... TREASON?

And we should have troops on the ground in in the Saudi capital?
And have Saudi rebels drag the Saudi kings (who Bush and Obama have been kissing!) out in the street to be shot like Gaddafi right?

Or just Drone strike the palaces?
No one who supports those who take up arms against America have any rights and are not fit to live. right?
Even if they never fired a shot themselves.
Al-Awlaki didn't give millions to AQ and other terrorist groups. and he deserved to die without arrest or trail. right?

[revelarts]

Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country
A speech by an ex-MI6 boss hints at a plan going back over a decade. In some areas, being Shia is akin to being a Jew in Nazi Germany

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html



'Thank God for the Saudis': ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback U.S lawmakers encouraged officials in Riyadh to arm Syrian rebels. Now that strategy may have created a monster in the Middle East.

McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962) with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.....

Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”...


http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/


Saudi Arabia is obviously a "terrorist state" .

[revelarts]

Islamic State: ‘US failure to look into Saudi role in 9/11 has helped Isis’


The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has been aided by the continuing failure of the US Government to investigate the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks and its support of jihadi movements such as al-Qaeda in the years since, says former Senator Bob Graham, the co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11.

Senator Graham, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that successive administrations in Washington had turned a blind eye to Saudi support for Sunni extremists. He added: “I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the US – and in particular their support for Isis.”....


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html


we've got to do something right? can't be weak here and let the Saudis just run wild and create a caliphate right?

and you know what.... i think they may be MUSLIM!!!!

[jimnyc]

Have we attacked other countries that perhaps aided terrorism via finances? Oh that's right, we didn't. So the "consistent" part would be NOT to attack. But if they are involved with aiding terrorists, I would be ALL FOR cutting out those responsible and cutting off any and all funding they can intercept. Similar to sanctions against other countries for various other reasons.

But one Qatari official doesn't make it true. But again, if it is proven, put them on board with NK and Iran as far as I'm concerned.

[jimnyc]

You know i don't want to attack anyone But if we're being consistent.

Since Bush and Obama both knew about this and haven't gone after them.... aren't they Guilty of.... TREASON?

And we should have troops on the ground in in the Saudi capital?
And have Saudi rebels drag the Saudi kings (who Bush and Obama have been kissing!) out in the street to be shot like Gaddafi right?

Or just Drone strike the palaces?
No one who supports those who take up arms against America have any rights and are not fit to live. right?
Even if they never fired a shot themselves.
Al-Awlaki didn't give millions to AQ and other terrorist groups. and he deserved to die without arrest or trail. right?



we've got to do something right? can't be weak here and let the Saudis just run wild and create a caliphate right?

and you know what.... i think they may be MUSLIM!!!!

Sure is a lot of sarcasm directed at others who haven't even responded yet. You may want to come in with less guns blaring if you expect serious responses. Just saying. :)

[revelarts]

Have we attacked other countries that perhaps aided terrorism via finances? Oh that's right, we didn't. So the "consistent" part would be NOT to attack. But if they are involved with aiding terrorists, I would be ALL FOR cutting out those responsible and cutting off any and all funding they can intercept. Similar to sanctions against other countries for various other reasons.

But one Qatari official doesn't make it true. But again, if it is proven, put them on board with NK and Iran as far as I'm concerned.

We've been drone striking terrorist and "material supporters" Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere for years. Any drone strikes in Saudi Arabia?

And part of the justification for attacking Libya is was that "Gaddafi was (past tense) a supporter of terrorism.

[jimnyc]

We've been drone striking terrorist and "material supporters" Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere for years. Any drone strikes in Saudi Arabia?

And part of the justification for attacking Libya is was that "Gaddafi was (past tense) a supporter of terrorism.

We've been hitting TERRORISTS in Pakistan and those directly related to them. We are NOT solely hitting people who may have financed them. And yes, PART of the justification....

[revelarts]

Sure is a lot of sarcasm directed at others who haven't even responded yet. You may want to come in with less guns blaring if you expect serious responses. Just saying. :)

You can take a bit of ribbing going in Jim.
But there are real questions on the table,
and there seems to be a bit of ridiculousness about the situation.

[jimnyc]

You can take a bit of ribbing going Jim.
All real questions, and there seems to be a bit of ridiculousness about the situation.

I think you're the only one who sees it as ridiculous as the world tries to stem terrorism.

I think there's a big difference between what one Qatari official states - and the actual actions of known terrorists.

[NightTrain]

We're not energy independent yet, Rev.

I think you'll see a shift in our relations with some of these countries once we achieve that goal. The fracking technology has been a wonderful development.

[revelarts]

We're not energy independent yet, Rev.

I think you'll see a shift in our relations with some of these countries once we achieve that goal. The fracking technology has been a wonderful development.

thanks for an honest answer.

[jimnyc]

thanks for an honest answer.

So you like his answer and that makes it honest, as if mine was somehow dishonest? LOL

[revelarts]

So you like his answer and that makes it honest, as if mine was somehow dishonest? LOL

Are you putting words in my mouth Jim?

[jimnyc]

Are you putting words in my mouth Jim?

Nope, you used your own words. Why point out one reply for honesty and not others?

[revelarts]

Nope, you used your own words. Why point out one reply for honesty and not others?

I replied to your post directly didn't I?
Did i "say" your replies were dishonest?

thin and lame maybe , you can quote me there.

[jimnyc]

I replied to your post directly didn't I?
Did i "say" your replies were dishonest?

Going back and forth with me, and then hearing what you want to hear and then telling that person thanks for being honest, implies prior comments were not.

[jimnyc]

thin and lame maybe , you can quote me there.

So you added an admission of sorts to your post after I replied already. And I will quote you, and not bother with further replies to you. It was your choice. I tried to engage you several times since you came back, and you seem to want to hold a chip on your shoulder or whatever. I'm not engaging people to deal with the crap.

[Gunny]

You know i don't want to attack anyone But if we're being consistent.


WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists

Hillary Clinton memo highlights Gulf states' failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding





Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
George W. Bush (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewbu146548.html)


Since Bush and Obama both knew about this and haven't gone after them.... aren't they Guilty of.... TREASON?

And we should have troops on the ground in in the Saudi capital?
And have Saudi rebels drag the Saudi kings (who Bush and Obama have been kissing!) out in the street to be shot like Gaddafi right?

Or just Drone strike the palaces?
No one who supports those who take up arms against America have any rights and are not fit to live. right?
Even if they never fired a shot themselves.
Al-Awlaki didn't give millions to AQ and other terrorist groups. and he deserved to die without arrest or trail. right?


Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country


A speech by an ex-MI6 boss hints at a plan going back over a decade. In some areas, being Shia is akin to being a Jew in Nazi Germany



How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html


http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/


Saudi Arabia is obviously a "terrorist state" .


Islamic State: ‘US failure to look into Saudi role in 9/11 has helped Isis’


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html


we've got to do something right? can't be weak here and let the Saudis just run wild and create a caliphate right?

and you know what.... i think they may be MUSLIM!!!!


Have we attacked other countries that perhaps aided terrorism via finances? Oh that's right, we didn't. So the "consistent" part would be NOT to attack. But if they are involved with aiding terrorists, I would be ALL FOR cutting out those responsible and cutting off any and all funding they can intercept. Similar to sanctions against other countries for various other reasons.

But one Qatari official doesn't make it true. But again, if it is proven, put them on board with NK and Iran as far as I'm concerned.

And you think YOU act bad on coffee.:laugh:

[revelarts]

We've been hitting TERRORISTS in Pakistan and those directly related to them. We are NOT solely hitting people who may have financed them. And yes, PART of the justification....

Jim, were Alwalaki and his son "terrorist"? neither had fired a shot or set a bomb.
We know the Saudis have given funds directly to Isis and AQ, how is that not "directly related"?
and any official Saudi involvement in 911 should be a deal breaker on any excuses made for them.
Alwalaki was not involved in 9-11, but he was droned, Any Saudi officials Droned for 911? tortured... jailed.. arrested... investigated?

If you'd do a search for 'Saudi Arabia funding terrorism" you'll get pages of articles,
not just a quote from 1 guy as you try to paint it. If i'd posted 5 or 6 more, you'll say I'm going overboard "loony".

your responses have not been strong,
and you've avoided the point NT made.

you know my style is a bit direct concerning facts,
maybe a bit over the top to make a point,
and I tend to make jokes over what i consider blatant contradictions.

But if you didn't like the way i put my first few post here, why'd you reply?
I didn't call your name. And had no intention of offending you.
and have not tried to do so anywhere else.

maybe a 3rd party can check my post and see where i've said anything harsh or personal towards you Jim.

[Drummond]

Jim, were Alwalaki and his son "terrorist"? neither had fired a shot or set a bomb.
We know the Saudis have given funds directly to Isis and AQ, how is that not "directly related"?
and any official Saudi involvement in 911 should be a deal breaker on any excuses made for them.
Alwalaki was not involved in 9-11, but he was droned, Any Saudi officials Droned for 911? tortured... jailed.. arrested... investigated?

If you'd do a search for 'Saudi Arabia funding terrorism" you'll get pages of articles,
not just a quote from 1 guy as you try to paint it. If i'd posted 5 or 6 more, you'll say I'm going overboard "loony".

your responses have not been strong,
and you've avoided the point NT made.

you know my style is a bit direct concerning facts,
maybe a bit over the top to make a point,
and I tend to make jokes over what i consider blatant contradictions.

But if you didn't like the way i put my first few post here, why'd you reply?
I didn't call your name. And had no intention of offending you.
and have not tried to do so anywhere else.

maybe a 3rd party can check my post and see where i've said anything harsh or personal towards you Jim.

Ho hum. This is fairly bog-standard Leftie stuff. Isn't it ?

Revelarts, I'm assuming we can all see what this is really about ?

Let me summarise.

You want to highlight the example of Saudi Arabia, and the West's great tolerance / cooperation with Saudi, as an example of the West's 'hypocrisy'.

And, for why ? To plant the more inclusive thought in our minds that when the West has taken on other regimes (e.g Saddam), it did so hypocritically, illegally, illegitimately ... and, let me guess ? 'FOR THE OIL' .....

I've heard this argument from the Left far too many times, Revelarts, and I'm in no doubt that this is what you want people to think is true now.

It's a trick of the Left to, basically, put us all to sleep. We should stop taking on rogue regimes, eh ? We should all leave the Middle East alone .. eh ?

.... OR .... we should attack Saudi Arabia, and see the West's interests greatly damaged by it .. ?

There is but one 'constant' in your argument, Revelarts. Either (1) our so-called 'hypocrisy' should 'end' and we should attack a main supplier of oil. This leaving us much worse off than before (to put it mildly).

Or, (2), we should leave future Saddam-equivalents alone, and let them say and do as they will ... and to hell with world security.

The 'constant', Revelarts, is that if we let Left-wing though be our guide, we will all suffer for it.

Now tell me where I'm wrong .....

[aboutime]

rev. Your Hypocrisy is showing. You have insisted that YOU are a peace loving, dove, and you are proud of it.

So, your hypocrisy, in suggesting or asking whether we should attack ANYONE, flies in the face of your claims.

[grannyhawkins]

Bein new here, I'm takin rev at face value. I know the shrubs are are all kissy face an hand holdin with the Saudi's an all, but at face value why don't we just invade thar sorry arse's an an let Halliburton/Brown an Root take over??? Am I missin somethin??? Have y'all ever seen moozlums really do any work, besides runnin quickie marts an pushin blue slushies and rotisserie hot dogs??? I think they'd be a push over and you could actually negotiate a bloodless take over!!! Well Kerry couldn't, but I'm tired of kissin middle eastern arses and I think we need ta call in a real pest control company!!!

[revelarts]

Ho hum. This is fairly bog-standard Leftie stuff. Isn't it ?
Revelarts, I'm assuming we can all see what this is really about ?
Let me summarise.
You want to highlight the example of Saudi Arabia, and the West's great tolerance / cooperation with Saudi, as an example of the West's 'hypocrisy'.
And, for why ? To plant the more inclusive thought in our minds that when the West has taken on other regimes (e.g Saddam), it did so hypocritically, illegally, illegitimately ... and, let me guess ? 'FOR THE OIL' .....
I've heard this argument from the Left far too many times, Revelarts, and I'm in no doubt that this is what you want people to think is true now.
It's a trick of the Left to, basically, put us all to sleep. We should stop taking on rogue regimes, eh ? We should all leave the Middle East alone .. eh ?
.... OR .... we should attack Saudi Arabia, and see the West's interests greatly damaged by it .. ?
There is but one 'constant' in your argument, Revelarts. Either (1) our so-called 'hypocrisy' should 'end' and we should attack a main supplier of oil. This leaving us much worse off than before (to put it mildly).
Or, (2), we should leave future Saddam-equivalents alone, and let them say and do as they will ... and to hell with world security.
The 'constant', Revelarts, is that if we let Left-wing though be our guide, we will all suffer for it.
Now tell me where I'm wrong .....


"...It's a trick of the Left..."
LOL!

The clear and absurd double standard of the "war on terror" is a trick of the left?
neither the left or the right have dealt seriously with the Saudis on the one issue that you Drummond want the torture and death of the "animals" for, without trail or prison. you've been on the board crying for the blood of 'the animals' with a hot and holy passion. And accuse those that don't do the same of foolishness, blindness and being LEFTIST.
But now you say it's pragmatic not to touch the some 911 killers.
And wise to allow them some latitude to preserve the peace and prosperity at home.
um Yes, that's hypocrisy. the very definition.

So, If I say 'we're SAFER and better off if we don't attack everyone because it will likely cause more harm than good for us'
, I'm a foolish leftist.
But If you say 'we're SAFER and better off if we don't attack everyone because it will likely cause more harm than good",
your a wise pragmatist?

When does the double think stop Drummond?

For you to be consistent...well ok look, it appears the Saudi's had a hand in 9-11.
You can't honestly HOWL DAILY for the droned and tortured blood of all terrorist everywhere... even those who have yet to make a move... and ignore the Saudis who had a hand in 9-11 because you want to make sure you've got some gas in your Benz.

And if you do, we've lost already.
and the "war on terror" is a SHAM. (as I've said many times)
Especially the chest beating flag waving cries of
'hangin's to good for um' and 'kill them while we can'... 'better to do it there than here'.
When a main financial pipeline for all of our terrorist enemies, AQ, al Nusrah, Isis and others, flows through untouchable Saudi Arabia. And by further extension the west and ours pocket every time we put fuel in our cars.
The horrors and attacks by the terrorist gangs were ultimately funded by the west.

It may make us FEEL better to swat the terrorist flies and claim victory if we kill a few.
But the sewer they bred in comes from Saudi Arabia. Not just in the form of funds, but in terrorist bodies and its the seat of the WORSE form of Islam.

Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Obama are all playing games.
You can't "WIN" a war on terror while allowing the funders free reign to supply the enemy!
It's BS Drummond.

no amount of Double Think can create a coherent plan or anything like VICTORY with that going on.
Daily crying that "...the Muslims are going to kill us all if we don't do something AAAHHH..." is HOLLOW.
we've already lost unless we are honest and address the WHOLE problem HONESTLY from all sides.
And with more tools than the military.
Just PLAYING cowboy and thinking that killing some terrorist on the battle field is not going to work in the long run.
We can swat mosquitoes all day long or we can, in some form, try to drain the worse part of the swamp.

and that doesn't mean we have to Attack a nation.
the Saudis like their money and their position. the Oil companies and the west CAN pressure them to do exactly what we want without firing a shot. IF they really wanted to. OR on the darkside ...again... the CIA is NOT afraid to kill leaders in South America for the fruit and oil companies, why not to stop the funding of terror. The Saudis are dictators fat on their wealth and pressured by crazy clerics, the U.S can do the same if it wanted too. The terrorist kidnap rich middleeasterners. We can kidnapped and put on trail funders from Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.. then throw them in a freakin regular U.S. prisons for the rest of their lives.
The larger terrorist efforts will dry up if they get no $$$ for food, travel, GAS, ammo.

And I've mentioned this several times before but I'll add it here.
we've spent apx 2 trillion in Afghanistan & Iraq alone ... so far... with expect cost to go to up to 6 trillion.
and energy is the main reason we give a flip about the middle east at all.
Why haven't we done a Manhattan Project on energy?
I suspect with 7 years and 25-75 billion dollars we could have one or many working alternative fuel sources
that would allow the desert kingdoms to go back into poverty and to their infighting WITHOUT US.

If security is our REAL goal, then we have to be deadly serious about breaking our energy dependance.
And stopping the funding of the enemy. period.
But people seem to feel better trying to 'kill da evil muzzy terrorist'... and people that are suspected terrorist... and their families.
That'sWAR!!!
You're rah rah for that program.
But full blown consistent solutions, well that's not on the table.
We're suppose to magically be able to fund the enemy with one hand and defeat the enemy with the other.
Is that the practical "right wing" method your advocating?

[Drummond]

"...It's a trick of the Left..."
LOL!

The clear and absurd double standard of the "war on terror" is a trick of the left?
neither the left or the right have dealt seriously with the Saudis on the one issue that you Drummond want the torture and death of the "animals" for, without trail or prison. you've been on the board crying for the blood of 'the animals' with a hot and holy passion. And accuse those that don't do the same of foolishness, blindness and being LEFTIST.
But now you say it's pragmatic not to touch the some 911 killers.
And wise to allow them some latitude to preserve the peace and prosperity at home.
um Yes, that's hypocrisy. the very definition.

So, If I say 'we're SAFER and better off if we don't attack everyone because it will likely cause more harm than good for us'
, I'm a foolish leftist.
But If you say 'we're SAFER and better off if we don't attack everyone because it will likely cause more harm than good",
your a wise pragmatist?

When does the double think stop Drummond?

For you to be consistent...well ok look, it appears the Saudi's had a hand in 9-11.
You can't honestly HOWL DAILY for the droned and tortured blood of all terrorist everywhere... even those who have yet to make a move... and ignore the Saudis who had a hand in 9-11 because you want to make sure you've got some gas in your Benz.

And if you do, we've lost already.
and the "war on terror" is a SHAM. (as I've said many times)
Especially the chest beating flag waving cries of
'hangin's to good for um' and 'kill them while we can'... 'better to do it there than here'.
When a main financial pipeline for all of our terrorist enemies, AQ, al Nusrah, Isis and others, flows through untouchable Saudi Arabia. And by further extension the west and ours pocket every time we put fuel in our cars.
The horrors and attacks by the terrorist gangs were ultimately funded by the west.

It may make us FEEL better to swat the terrorist flies and claim victory if we kill a few.
But the sewer they bred in comes from Saudi Arabia. Not just in the form of funds, but in terrorist bodies and its the seat of the WORSE form of Islam.

Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Obama are all playing games.
You can't "WIN" a war on terror while allowing the funders free reign to supply the enemy!
It's BS Drummond.

no amount of Double Think can create a coherent plan or anything like VICTORY with that going on.
Daily crying that "...the Muslims are going to kill us all if we don't do something AAAHHH..." is HOLLOW.
we've already lost unless we are honest and address the WHOLE problem HONESTLY from all sides.
And with more tools than the military.
Just PLAYING cowboy and thinking that killing some terrorist on the battle field is not going to work in the long run.
We can swat mosquitoes all day long or we can, in some form, try to drain the worse part of the swamp.

and that doesn't mean we have to Attack a nation.
the Saudis like their money and their position. the Oil companies and the west CAN pressure them to do exactly what we want without firing a shot. IF they really wanted to. OR on the darkside ...again... the CIA is NOT afraid to kill leaders in South America for the fruit and oil companies, why not to stop the funding of terror. The Saudis are dictators fat on their wealth and pressured by crazy clerics, the U.S can do the same if it wanted too. The terrorist kidnap rich middleeasterners. We can kidnapped and put on trail funders from Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.. then throw them in a freakin regular U.S. prisons for the rest of their lives.
The larger terrorist efforts will dry up if they get no $$$ for food, travel, GAS, ammo.

And I've mentioned this several times before but I'll add it here.
we've spent apx 2 trillion in Afghanistan & Iraq alone ... so far... with expect cost to go to up to 6 trillion.
and energy is the main reason we give a flip about the middle east at all.
Why haven't we done a Manhattan Project on energy?
I suspect with 7 years and 25-75 billion dollars we could have one or many working alternative fuel sources
that would allow the desert kingdoms to go back into poverty and to their infighting WITHOUT US.

If security is our REAL goal, then we have to be deadly serious about breaking our energy dependance.
And stopping the funding of the enemy. period.
But people seem to feel better trying to 'kill da evil muzzy terrorist'... and people that are suspected terrorist... and their families.
That'sWAR!!!
You're rah rah for that program.
But full blown consistent solutions, well that's not on the table.
We're suppose to magically be able to fund the enemy with one hand and defeat the enemy with the other.
Is that the practical "right wing" method your advocating?

... wow !

Admittedly I've only skimmed this (.. coming up to 3AM locally, after all ..) .. but, really, is this PURE Leftieism ?

I'm tired. I may come back to this tomorrow. But in the meantime, consider this ...


we've spent apx 2 trillion in Afghanistan & Iraq alone ... so far... with expect cost to go to up to 6 trillion.
and energy is the main reason we give a flip about the middle east at all.

Imagine, Revelarts, that September 11th 2001 had only happened a couple of days ago (maybe a week ?). By that stage, the War on Terror had just been announced, the culprits for 9/11 newly-identified.

Well, I wonder. In such a scenario, would you have had the nerve to say ANY of this ???

Try telling the newly-bereaved that military action about to be undertaken was REALLY about oil grabbing !!! Try begrudging the cost of military expenditure, when the 3,000 dead weren't even buried yet !!!

Revelarts - if you're actually not the slave to your propagandist scriptwriters that I suspect you to be, try stepping back from your argument, and seeing that Left-wing propaganda of this type reduces you to arguing in a moral vacuum.

[aboutime]

Bein new here, I'm takin rev at face value. I know the shrubs are are all kissy face an hand holdin with the Saudi's an all, but at face value why don't we just invade thar sorry arse's an an let Halliburton/Brown an Root take over??? Am I missin somethin??? Have y'all ever seen moozlums really do any work, besides runnin quickie marts an pushin blue slushies and rotisserie hot dogs??? I think they'd be a push over and you could actually negotiate a bloodless take over!!! Well Kerry couldn't, but I'm tired of kissin middle eastern arses and I think we need ta call in a real pest control company!!!


Granny. Couldn't agree more with ya. BUT, and thats a big BUT. Our politicians are, and have been in bed with the Saudi's longer than most people living in the USA today have been alive.

The ONE stumbling block that prevents us from invading their sorry arse's is...MONEY, and LOTS OF IT.

Like the Chinese. The Saudi's own lots, and lots of AMERICAN PROPERTY, with Mortgages out the WHAHOO.

Not to mention how our BELOVED ELECTED OFFICIALS are beholden to the Saudi's for almost everything.

Most Americans who claim to pay attention, always point to OIL. But that's no longer what keeps us shaking their hands.

We produce more Oil than they do these days.

[revelarts]

... wow !

Admittedly I've only skimmed this (.. coming up to 3AM locally, after all ..) .. but, really, is this PURE Leftieism ?

I'm tired. I may come back to this tomorrow. But in the meantime, consider this ...



Imagine, Revelarts, that September 11th 2001 had only happened a couple of days ago (maybe a week ?). By that stage, the War on Terror had just been announced, the culprits for 9/11 newly-identified.

Well, I wonder. In such a scenario, would you have had the nerve to say ANY of this ???

Try telling the newly-bereaved that military action about to be undertaken was REALLY about oil grabbing !!! Try begrudging the cost of military expenditure, when the 3,000 dead weren't even buried yet !!!

Revelarts - if you're actually not the slave to your propagandist scriptwriters that I suspect you to be, try stepping back from your argument, and seeing that Left-wing propaganda of this type reduces you to arguing in a moral vacuum.

:rolleyes:, Believe it or not Drummond the left won't have me either.

Drummond you just admitted that why we haven't attacked the Saudis in anyway is because of OIL.
but if I say we are still in the Iraq and Afghanistan is mainly because of Oil I'm a lefty?!
It's amazing how you think you can make both sides work for you.

[revelarts]

Drummond Even more to the point.
would you want to tel americans that we were NOT going to attack, jail, punish or even seriously investigate any Saudis that had a hand in 911 on that day because of OIL?

[gabosaurus]

A strong president would have at least threatened the Saudis with military action after the 9-11 attacks. But instead of going after the roots of terrorism, the U.S. decide to invade a country to satisfy our president's personal grudge.
Instead, our government put together a commission to find out what went wrong. Which ended up pointing a lot of fingers at the Saudis. Once again, our Pussy.cat In Chief stepped in and excised those findings from the final report. Don't want to offend people your company is working oil deals with.
In return, the Saudis have continued to finance terrorism and promote political and religious instability in the Middle East. Which has in turn led to the creation of Isis and other extreme terrorist groups.
You can blame the black guy all you want, but there is no doubt where it all started.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html

[Gaffer]

:rolleyes:, Believe it or not Drummond the left won't have me either.

Drummond you just admitted that why we haven't attacked the Saudis in anyway is because of OIL.
but if I say we are still in the Iraq and Afghanistan is mainly because of Oil I'm a lefty?!
It's amazing how you think you can make both sides work for you.

You need to check your reading comprehension. He didn't say the war was about oil. He asked how would the relatives would feel to be told that. And you do make the leftie argument like a pro. If I didn't know better I'd say you were one.

[Kathianne]

A strong president would have at least threatened the Saudis with military action after the 9-11 attacks. But instead of going after the roots of terrorism, the U.S. decide to invade a country to satisfy our president's personal grudge.
Instead, our government put together a commission to find out what went wrong. Which ended up pointing a lot of fingers at the Saudis. Once again, our Pussy.cat In Chief stepped in and excised those findings from the final report. Don't want to offend people your company is working oil deals with.
In return, the Saudis have continued to finance terrorism and promote political and religious instability in the Middle East. Which has in turn led to the creation of Isis and other extreme terrorist groups.
You can blame the black guy all you want, but there is no doubt where it all started.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html

Gabby, the 'black card' was worn out eons ago. Your take on what happened is so sad, you've not a clue. Vanna could do better with a consonant.

[revelarts]

You need to check your reading comprehension. He didn't say the war was about oil. He asked how would the relatives would feel to be told that. And you do make the leftie argument like a pro. If I didn't know better I'd say you were one.
I asked him, how would the relatives would feel to be told that,
'we WON'T do JACK to Saudi Arabia, even though they had a hand in their deaths of 911, because of OIL'.

...There is but one 'constant' in your argument, Revelarts. Either (1) our so-called 'hypocrisy' should 'end' and we should attack a main supplier of oil. This leaving us much worse off than before (to put it mildly)....

Drummonds words.
basically, we should not attack Saudi Arabia because of Oil.

What the heck is "Leftie" about that assessment?
it's the truth.

attacking Saudi Arabia Militarily would have been --and still would-- be stupid.
because of OIL.
We must become energy independent,
But they should be held to account for whatever part they had in 911, and terrorism elsewhere.
And their hands cut off from supplying terrorist ASAP. If we are serious about a "war on terror" that is.
If we just want a war show for the public with a continual M.E. gangster "war" leave them be.

[jimnyc]

Let me summarise.

It's an old and dumb tactic. "Well, you did this here, so you MUST do the same here" - regardless of context, history, facts... It's a way of saying "If you don't do this, then it proves you're wrong" bullshit.

If terrorists are hiding in SA like they are in Pakistan and Yemen, target them too, but I don't see them hiding there. If there are bases there and terrorists camps, bomb them, but I don't see them there. If they are killing swaths of innocent folks there, I say bomb the hell out of them, but they simply aren't there.

If it's solely financial support, or even if it's some sort of intelligence support, I couldn't care less if they treat them as part of the "axis of evil" and discontinue relations and hit them with sanctions.

But to claim we should bomb them with drones and such and all the other hysterical rants, simply comical. And the thread idea isn't to say we should bomb them, but to be sarcastic at prior comments, more or less stating that we should bomb them, based on members earlier comments about other countries/terrorists.

[Gunny]

Ho hum. This is fairly bog-standard Leftie stuff. Isn't it ?

Revelarts, I'm assuming we can all see what this is really about ?

Let me summarise.

You want to highlight the example of Saudi Arabia, and the West's great tolerance / cooperation with Saudi, as an example of the West's 'hypocrisy'.

And, for why ? To plant the more inclusive thought in our minds that when the West has taken on other regimes (e.g Saddam), it did so hypocritically, illegally, illegitimately ... and, let me guess ? 'FOR THE OIL' .....

I've heard this argument from the Left far too many times, Revelarts, and I'm in no doubt that this is what you want people to think is true now.

It's a trick of the Left to, basically, put us all to sleep. We should stop taking on rogue regimes, eh ? We should all leave the Middle East alone .. eh ?

.... OR .... we should attack Saudi Arabia, and see the West's interests greatly damaged by it .. ?

There is but one 'constant' in your argument, Revelarts. Either (1) our so-called 'hypocrisy' should 'end' and we should attack a main supplier of oil. This leaving us much worse off than before (to put it mildly).

Or, (2), we should leave future Saddam-equivalents alone, and let them say and do as they will ... and to hell with world security.

The 'constant', Revelarts, is that if we let Left-wing though be our guide, we will all suffer for it.

Now tell me where I'm wrong .....

Here are the facts. And not a left wing trick, just the facts.

Our "allies" in the Middle East are Sunni. Both AQ and ISIS are whabbi -- extremist sunni's. They are supported by Sunni ME nations. That would include Saudi Arabia.

Our "enemies in the ME, Syria and Iran, are shia. Iraq is also majority shia from the government on down.

We are supporting the government of Iraq that is most closely aligned to Iran (our enemy) against ISIS, which is most closely aligned with our "allies".

Now, I leave it to you to make sense of it, but those ARE the actual facts.

IF that is what rev posted, then he is correct. I don't know. He posts freakin' novels and I ain't reading them. He's his own worst enemy in that regard.

[revelarts]

Gunny, Yes but you don't make as clear -the fact- that AQ and now ISIS are suppose to be our mortal enemies
BUT we are friendly allies with it's supporters. Which makes the "war" a sham and counter productive..
And that our Ally Saudi Arabia is now implicated as a partner in the 9-11 attacks.
Facts which some people think i mention only for "sarcastic" purposes.

[Gunny]

Gunny, Yes but you don't make as clear -the fact- that AQ and now ISIS are suppose to be our mortal enemies
BUT we are friendly allies with it's supporters. Which makes the "war" a sham and counter productive..
And that our Ally Saudi Arabia is now implicated as a partner in the 9-11 attacks.
Facts which some people think i mention only for "sarcastic" purposes.

I think I made it pretty clear. And concise. So people might actually read it.

What I DIDN'T do was tell anyone what to think.

[jimnyc]

IF that is what rev posted, then he is correct. I don't know. He posts freakin' novels and I ain't reading them. He's his own worst enemy in that regard.

A paragraph and proper punctuation goes a LONG way to people actually reading.


I think I made it pretty clear. And concise. So people might actually read it.

What I DIDN'T do was tell anyone what to think.

But, but, but... if you believe we should stamp out terrorism, and have an opinion about how to handle in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen - then you MUST feel the same about the government in SA, and we should bomb them just as we bomb ISIS. :dunno:

[Gunny]

A paragraph and proper punctuation goes a LONG way to people actually reading.



But, but, but... if you believe we should stamp out terrorism, and have an opinion about how to handle in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen - then you MUST feel the same about the government in SA, and we should bomb them just as we bomb ISIS. :dunno:

Nope. I think we should pack our trash and let them have their little religious war and kill each other off. This is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran and we're trying to straddle the fence.

I also think we should reevaluate our political and military ambitions as they are odds with one another.

[revelarts]

I think I made it pretty clear. And concise. So people might actually read it.
What I DIDN'T do was tell anyone what to think.
Well that's cool, that's a very good approach to take. I used to try that more but I get frustrated and tend just to let the editorial and bombastic approach flow.

[revelarts]

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jgSeOheKe5U?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/investigations/2014/09/11/bob-graham-fbi-911-coverup/15456013/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bein new here, I'm takin rev at face value. I know the shrubs are are all kissy face an hand holdin with the Saudi's an all, but at face value why don't we just invade thar sorry arse's an an let Halliburton/Brown an Root take over??? Am I missin somethin??? Have y'all ever seen moozlums really do any work, besides runnin quickie marts an pushin blue slushies and rotisserie hot dogs??? I think they'd be a push over and you could actually negotiate a bloodless take over!!! Well Kerry couldn't, but I'm tired of kissin middle eastern arses and I think we need ta call in a real pest control company!!!

Here, here, Granny.
There is far too much truth in that for any of the lemmings, sheeple, ordinary government leeches , libs/dems, to ever accept any of it-- well dems but I repeat myself on that...;)

I am just waiting for fj to attack you on your utter "racism" (;)) when speaking of the glorious and peaceful muzzies in such a negative and demeaning way. :rofl1:--Tyr

[revelarts]

"Sunni Muslims commit more terrorist acts worldwide than any other group.
For example, the National Counterterrorism Center’s 2011 Report on Terrorism (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf) found that:
Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities. Among this perpetrator group, al-Qa‘ida (AQ) and its affiliates were responsible for at least 688 attacks that resulted in almost 2,000 deaths, while the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan conducted over 800 attacks that resulted in nearly 1,900 deaths. Secular, political, and anarchist groups were the next largest category of perpetrators, conducting 2,283 attacks with 1,926 fatalities, a drop of 5 percent and 9 percent, respectively, from 2010.

(Thankfully, the percentage of Muslim terror attacks in the U.S. is relatively small (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html) (Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil. Terrorism Is a Real Threat … But the Threat to the U.S. from Muslim Terrorists Has Been Exaggerated An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum) were perpetrated by Muslims.)).

Saudi Arabia is the center of the Sunni branch of Islam. It is also the center of the most violent and radical sect of Islam … the “Wahhabis” (also called “Salafis”). But the U.S. has long supported (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html) the Madrassa schools within Saudi Arabia which teach radical Wahabi beliefs.
Indeed, the U.S. has directly inserted itself into a sectarian war between the two main Islamic sects, backing the “Sunnis” and attacking the “Shiites” (also called “Shia”). See this (http://worldblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/14/9422243-post-us-iraq-welcome-to-shia-stan), this (http://www.newsy.com/videos/u-s-finalizes-30-billion-arms-deal-with-saudi-arabia/) and this (http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=1673).

For example, American political leaders have been very close to Saudi (i.e. Sunni) leaders for decades:
---Insert photos of Bush kissing and Obama bowing here---

Why? Because of Saudi oil. (Virtually all geopolitics are based on oil (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/top-republican-leaders-say-iraq-war-was-really-for-oil.html) and other hydrocarbons (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-wars-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-are-not-just-about-oil-theyre-also-about-gas.html).)
Indeed, (1) the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and (2) a former 6-year congressman and MSNBC talk show host have both said that – even if the Saudi government was behind 9/11 – we need Saudi oil too much (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/fbi-report-implicates-saudis-in-911.html) to do anything about it....."


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/the-u-s-is-supporting-the-most-violent-muslim-terrorists-in-order-to-wage-war-for-oil.html

[Drummond]

"...It's a trick of the Left..."
LOL!

The clear and absurd double standard of the "war on terror" is a trick of the left?
neither the left or the right have dealt seriously with the Saudis on the one issue that you Drummond want the torture and death of the "animals" for, without trail or prison. you've been on the board crying for the blood of 'the animals' with a hot and holy passion. And accuse those that don't do the same of foolishness, blindness and being LEFTIST.
But now you say it's pragmatic not to touch the some 911 killers.
And wise to allow them some latitude to preserve the peace and prosperity at home.
um Yes, that's hypocrisy. the very definition.

So, If I say 'we're SAFER and better off if we don't attack everyone because it will likely cause more harm than good for us'
, I'm a foolish leftist.
But If you say 'we're SAFER and better off if we don't attack everyone because it will likely cause more harm than good",
your a wise pragmatist?

When does the double think stop Drummond?

For you to be consistent...well ok look, it appears the Saudi's had a hand in 9-11.
You can't honestly HOWL DAILY for the droned and tortured blood of all terrorist everywhere... even those who have yet to make a move... and ignore the Saudis who had a hand in 9-11 because you want to make sure you've got some gas in your Benz.

And if you do, we've lost already.
and the "war on terror" is a SHAM. (as I've said many times)
Especially the chest beating flag waving cries of
'hangin's to good for um' and 'kill them while we can'... 'better to do it there than here'.
When a main financial pipeline for all of our terrorist enemies, AQ, al Nusrah, Isis and others, flows through untouchable Saudi Arabia. And by further extension the west and ours pocket every time we put fuel in our cars.
The horrors and attacks by the terrorist gangs were ultimately funded by the west.

It may make us FEEL better to swat the terrorist flies and claim victory if we kill a few.
But the sewer they bred in comes from Saudi Arabia. Not just in the form of funds, but in terrorist bodies and its the seat of the WORSE form of Islam.

Bush, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Obama are all playing games.
You can't "WIN" a war on terror while allowing the funders free reign to supply the enemy!
It's BS Drummond.

no amount of Double Think can create a coherent plan or anything like VICTORY with that going on.
Daily crying that "...the Muslims are going to kill us all if we don't do something AAAHHH..." is HOLLOW.
we've already lost unless we are honest and address the WHOLE problem HONESTLY from all sides.
And with more tools than the military.
Just PLAYING cowboy and thinking that killing some terrorist on the battle field is not going to work in the long run.
We can swat mosquitoes all day long or we can, in some form, try to drain the worse part of the swamp.

and that doesn't mean we have to Attack a nation.
the Saudis like their money and their position. the Oil companies and the west CAN pressure them to do exactly what we want without firing a shot. IF they really wanted to. OR on the darkside ...again... the CIA is NOT afraid to kill leaders in South America for the fruit and oil companies, why not to stop the funding of terror. The Saudis are dictators fat on their wealth and pressured by crazy clerics, the U.S can do the same if it wanted too. The terrorist kidnap rich middleeasterners. We can kidnapped and put on trail funders from Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.. then throw them in a freakin regular U.S. prisons for the rest of their lives.
The larger terrorist efforts will dry up if they get no $$$ for food, travel, GAS, ammo.

And I've mentioned this several times before but I'll add it here.
we've spent apx 2 trillion in Afghanistan & Iraq alone ... so far... with expect cost to go to up to 6 trillion.
and energy is the main reason we give a flip about the middle east at all.
Why haven't we done a Manhattan Project on energy?
I suspect with 7 years and 25-75 billion dollars we could have one or many working alternative fuel sources
that would allow the desert kingdoms to go back into poverty and to their infighting WITHOUT US.

If security is our REAL goal, then we have to be deadly serious about breaking our energy dependance.
And stopping the funding of the enemy. period.
But people seem to feel better trying to 'kill da evil muzzy terrorist'... and people that are suspected terrorist... and their families.
That'sWAR!!!
You're rah rah for that program.
But full blown consistent solutions, well that's not on the table.
We're suppose to magically be able to fund the enemy with one hand and defeat the enemy with the other.
Is that the practical "right wing" method your advocating?

I take Gunny's point, Revelarts. You DO write novels. Not that I'm any stranger to lengthy posts myself, I suppose ...

Anyway, a couple of points. Gaffer's right to correct you about what I was truly saying.

And what I was really doing, in my post, was to list YOUR argumentation options. As follows:


There is but one 'constant' in your argument, Revelarts. Either (1) our so-called 'hypocrisy' should 'end' and we should attack a main supplier of oil. This leaving us much worse off than before (to put it mildly).

Or, (2), we should leave future Saddam-equivalents alone, and let them say and do as they will ... and to hell with world security.

Nowhere in this text did I advocate any position of my own.

But in any case, I'd like to move this along .. to a rather embarrassing 'truth' ...

See:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/saudi-arabia-rejects-iraqi-accusations-isis-support

Quotes --


Saudi Arabia has denied giving any support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis), the jihadi group that has captured swaths of territory across northern and central Iraq, as well as controlling large parts of northern Syria.


Stung by accusations from the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, the normally reticent Saudi government issued a statement rejecting what it called "false allegations" and a "malicious falsehood".


Wealthy individuals and religious foundations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere in the Gulf have channelled millions of dollars to the anti-Assad opposition, though it is not clear with what degree of official connivance.

But since last autumn the Saudi government has diverted its support to a broad Islamic Front which has been fighting against jihadi formations such as Isis and the Syrian group Jabhat al-Nusra. There is other evidence of a rethink in the replacement of the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, with Prince Mohamed bin Nayef, the interior minister and architect of a successful campaign against al-Qaida. The Saudis are also co-ordinating more closely with the US than previously.

"There is Saudi money flowing into Isis but it is not from the Saudi state," said Lina Khatib of the Carnegie Foundation.

It's at this point, Revelarts, that I remind you that the newspaper all of this comes from is a British, LEFTIE publication. So tell me, how are you going to defy ideological allies of yours, and reject the report ???

So, given all of this, you're now in a position (unless you reverse it) of suggesting that America attacks AN ALLY.

Are you still OK with that ? If so, WHY ?

I look forward to your answer !

[revelarts]

I take Gunny's point, Revelarts. You DO write novels. Not that I'm any stranger to lengthy posts myself, I suppose ...

Anyway, a couple of points. Gaffer's right to correct you about what I was truly saying.
And what I was really doing, in my post, was to list YOUR argumentation options. As follows:

Nowhere in this text did I advocate any position of my own.
But in any case, I'd like to move this along .. to a rather embarrassing 'truth' ...
See:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/saudi-arabia-rejects-iraqi-accusations-isis-support
Quotes --
It's at this point, Revelarts, that I remind you that the newspaper all of this comes from is a British, LEFTIE publication. So tell me, how are you going to defy ideological allies of yours, and reject the report ???
So, given all of this, you're now in a position (unless you reverse it) of suggesting that America attacks AN ALLY.
Are you still OK with that ? If so, WHY ?
I look forward to your answer !
Concerning the question in general, I'd say they should be attacked because they had a hand in 9-11. Are you saying countries and individuals that took part in the 911 attack should suffer no consequences?
I look forward to your answer !
Since you now seem to claim you DO NOT think (or have no position) that Oil has anything to do with our hands OFF policy concerning Saudi Arabia.

But If you read most of my post you'd know that i do not advocate attacking Saudi Arabia --militarily--. But that we should, in various other ways, make the Saudi royals and fat cat supporters pay and tow the line.

Concerning the Guardians report, well that seems to be good news however the 911 report never mentioned Saudi involvement in the attack of 911 either. But apparently the truth was known and COVERED UP by both the Bush and Obama admins. Why should we assume that any report about Saudis innocents has changed their well known pattern. Because they said so? No, when we see that AQ and ISIS no longer can function because of lack of financial support then we can start to believe Saudi assertions of innocents.
And why aren't they to be held accountable for their PAST actions that have helped crucify, beheld, disembowel, rape, murder and leave homeless 1000s of innocent Muslim and Christian families in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere?

Please note the Wiki leaks state dept memo of 2009 by Clinton
and the pages of contrary reports from news outlets of every political spectrum that confirm the Saudis continuous overt and covert support of terror around the world since 911.
I look forward to your answer!

[Drummond]

Concerning the question in general, I'd say they should be attacked because they had a hand in 9-11. Are you saying countries and individuals that took part in the 911 attack should suffer no consequences?
I look forward to your answer !

Ridiculous. Also untrue. Saudi Arabia had no hand in 9/11. OK ... so bin Laden came from there. OK, so, money did flow from individuals in Saudi Arabia to Al Qaeda. But the country itself - as a country - did not have actual involvement in 9/11.

If bin Laden's origins cause you to want to stick to your enthusiasm for waging war on Saudi Arabia .. OK, by the same brand of logic, why aren't you also advocating attacking Britain ? After all, the terrorist speaking on the recent beheading videos from ISIS spoke with a British accent. Does that make Britain culpable for ISIS brutalities ?

Individual terrorists deserve all the justice possible .. from bin Laden, to that as-yet unidentified Brit. They're all vermin .. exterminate them as they deserve, REGARDLESS of their countries of origin.


Since you now seem to claim you DO NOT think (or have no position) that Oil has anything to do with our hands OFF policy concerning Saudi Arabia.

Does oil have the relevance you insist it does ? I don't believe so. To say that it would be unwise to threaten a much-needed source of oil is no less than the simple truth, since it would be. However, YOU are the one considering it a central consideration in whether or not attacks are on the cards (.. or not). It is a typical Leftie fiction to insist that oil grabbing is a central motivation for American policy in the Middle East, when in fact it is not.

Consider, for example, Gulf War #1. Saddam, when forced to retreat from Kuwait, saw to it that Kuwaiti oilfields and facilities were set on fire. Now, KNOWING that Saddam had used that tactic in Kuwait .. had interest in invading Iraq been about oil grabbing, don't you think that your strategists would've expected Saddam to boobytrap Iraqi facilities ??

And yet, THE IRAQ INVASION HAPPENED, NONETHELESS.

So, your 'it's all about the oil' rubbish is proven false. Other, far more honourable and decent, motivations existed and were acted upon. Not that the Left would ever admit to the truth of that, though, they have slanderous propaganda to disseminate instead of truth ... so, being Lefties, the Left just do so, and truth be damned.


But If you read most of my post you'd know that i do not advocate attacking Saudi Arabia --militarily--. But that we should, in various other ways, make the Saudi royals and fat cat supporters pay and tow the line.

Well done on being a bit less bloodthirsty than I'd suspected, then. All the same, you are showing allies, even if they're relatively new allies, no good reason to trust any allegiance with you.

And the point of trying to sabotage that allegiance, Revelarts, would be ... ??


Concerning the Guardians report, well that seems to be good news however the 911 report never mentioned Saudi involvement in the attack of 911 either.

Translation: a Leftie is accusing a Left wing publication of good and responsible reporting ! Now, there's a surprise ...


But apparently the truth was known and COVERED UP by both the Bush and Obama admins. Why should we assume that any report about Saudis innocents has changed their well known pattern. Because they said so?

It's the Guardian's report. Is it a true or a false report ?

Besides, operations that the Saudis have undertaken against Al Qaeda ARE documented fact, I understand. You may not like Saudi Arabia as an ally, but to dismiss the potential of such a status quo is irresponsible at best.


No, when we see that AQ and ISIS no longer can function because of lack of financial support then we can start to believe Saudi assertions of innocents.

Contained within that statement is a dismissal of the accuracy of the Guardian report. Evidently, you and they need to better synchronise your propaganda outputs !


And why aren't they to be held accountable for their PAST actions that have helped crucify, beheld, disembowel, rape, murder and leave homeless 1000s of innocent Muslim and Christian families in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere?

You're absolutely determined to dispense with them as possible allies, aren't you ? And in doing so, will you encourage Saudis to go back to their pro-terrorist supporting ways ?

A little pragmatic commonsense CAN have its advantages, Revelarts.


Please note the Wiki leaks state dept memo of 2009 by Clinton
and the pages of contrary reports from news outlets of every political spectrum that confirm the Saudis continuous overt and covert support of terror around the world since 911.

Individual Saudis, or Saudi, the country ? Which ?

I see your utter determination not to be swayed from blame-game tactics, Revelarts, no matter what the cause or the advantages.

[revelarts]

um... your level of rationalization and denials of the issues is amazing.
all i'll say is please go back check my post info describing that the Saudis had a hand in 911.

[artur axmann]

They're better at decapitating ..

[BoogyMan]

A strong president would have at least threatened the Saudis with military action after the 9-11 attacks. But instead of going after the roots of terrorism, the U.S. decide to invade a country to satisfy our president's personal grudge.
Instead, our government put together a commission to find out what went wrong. Which ended up pointing a lot of fingers at the Saudis. Once again, our Pussy.cat In Chief stepped in and excised those findings from the final report. Don't want to offend people your company is working oil deals with.
In return, the Saudis have continued to finance terrorism and promote political and religious instability in the Middle East. Which has in turn led to the creation of Isis and other extreme terrorist groups.
You can blame the black guy all you want, but there is no doubt where it all started.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/islamic-state-us-failure-to-look-into-saudi-role-in-911-has-helped-isis-9731563.html

Riiiiigggghhhht Gabs, next we will hear about how Mr. Bush is responsible for WW1 and 2 and Small Pox and.....well, you name it. I have stepped in this kind of argument before and gladly scrape it off my shoe with the hope the stink will soon subside.

As you stop licking that socialist boot and look up why don't you ask what Mr. Obama has done to right Saudi wrongs....I have seen him bow down to the Saudis.....not much else.

You cannot be so thick as to think that the Saudis were not dirtbags before Mr. Bush.

In the mean time while Gabs is out there sticking pins in her GW doll, the Saudis beheaded 19 people in the first half of August. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executes-19-during-half-of-august-in-disturbing-surge-of-beheadings-9686063.html)

[aboutime]

rev. Why do you get such tremendous thrills out of perpetuating LIES that were introduced following September 11th, 2001.

You sound so much like a Master Conspiracy Theory Junkie. You remind me of Jesse Ventura On STEROIDS.

[grannyhawkins]

Granny. Couldn't agree more with ya. BUT, and thats a big BUT. Our politicians are, and have been in bed with the Saudi's longer than most people living in the USA today have been alive.

The ONE stumbling block that prevents us from invading their sorry arse's is...MONEY, and LOTS OF IT.

Like the Chinese. The Saudi's own lots, and lots of AMERICAN PROPERTY, with Mortgages out the WHAHOO.

Not to mention how our BELOVED ELECTED OFFICIALS are beholden to the Saudi's for almost everything.

Most Americans who claim to pay attention, always point to OIL. But that's no longer what keeps us shaking their hands.

We produce more Oil than they do these days.

I remember the Halliburton/Brown and Root days, when I was younger, watchin these ole boys comin back from Iran, with all these gold rings and tax free dollars, from a career in the middle east and just fillin out their retirement papers. I still have Iranian acquaintances, from the days of the shah, who were bein trained to fly fighters in the U.S.

Sure theirs lots of ties and connections, but I think our negotiating and diplomatic skills have died off with the shah, with our own political malfeasance, exacerbating the divides, but that doesn't mean we should pander to any middle eastern country, by bowing to them or turnin the other cheek. We're quite good, or at least we used to be, at financial warfare and it's time to hit all them moozlum bassturds, no matter their social positions, who are complicit in acts of terror, right where it hurts the most..........the pocketbook!!!

[Drummond]

um... your level of rationalization and denials of the issues is amazing.

Rationalisation comes easy, when you've the truth, and sheer commonsense, on your side. And yes ... the truth IS frequently amazing !


all i'll say is please go back check my post info describing that the Saudis had a hand in 911.

Are you referring to earlier material which had you posting links to the 'Independent' newspaper ?

The 'Independent' is another UK publication, so of course I know of it. I don't buy it these days (.. way too overpriced, for one thing ..) ... but then, I rarely if at all stoop to buying LEFTIE RAGS.

I see you keep choosing the more Left wing of our press, Revelarts ?

The 'Independent' is that in NAME ONLY these days. Oh, it started out nobly enough, being true to its name. Then the Iraq War happened, and the editorials started veering sharply to the Left, being at times stridently anti-war.

The paper has never properly recovered its equilibrium since then. These days, I'd call it a 'soft Left' paper. Still, at least your choice of bias is consistent.

You'd think that Leftie rags would pump out more closely matching propaganda than ours seem to. Oh, well.

So, Revelarts, you tell me. WHY would I take Leftie news sources as being 'gospel' ?

That YOU should, is surely obvious. You'll have your loyalties. Perhaps you should revisit the Guardian article ?

[revelarts]

Rationalisation comes easy, when you've the truth, and sheer commonsense, on your side. And yes ... the truth IS frequently amazing !
Are you referring to earlier material which had you posting links to the 'Independent' newspaper ?
The 'Independent' is another UK publication, so of course I know of it. I don't buy it these days (.. way too overpriced, for one thing ..) ... but then, I rarely if at all stoop to buying LEFTIE RAGS.
I see you keep choosing the more Left wing of our press, Revelarts ?
The 'Independent' is that in NAME ONLY these days. Oh, it started out nobly enough, being true to its name. Then the Iraq War happened, and the editorials started veering sharply to the Left, being at times stridently anti-war.
The paper has never properly recovered its equilibrium since then. These days, I'd call it a 'soft Left' paper. Still, at least your choice of bias is consistent.
You'd think that Leftie rags would pump out more closely matching propaganda than ours seem to. Oh, well.
So, Revelarts, you tell me. WHY would I take Leftie news sources as being 'gospel' ?
That YOU should, is surely obvious. You'll have your loyalties. Perhaps you should revisit the Guardian article ?

Drummond look, i have no loyalties to the left or right.
I know thats hard for you to accept but it's true.

as far as the info being sourced from the "independent" goes,
well 1st of all you may want to try paying more attention to the content then the original source which in this case is a former Governor, Senator and 911 commission member and others and the docs he saw collected by the FBI.
Maybe the FBI is to left wing for you to believe I don't know.
Did you look that far or did you just ignore my other links and saw "the independent" and assume it was all lies because it came a from paper you don't like?
frankly i don't get that. at all.
but here's the SAME information from
World Net Daily which is thoroughly Right wing, and try to put a spin on it.
from a FOX news affiliate.
from ABC news
and from the Atlantic magazine
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/911-report-could-sink-possible-gop-presidential-candidate/
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/26511322/2014/09/11/former-senator-government-hiding-full-911-story
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senators-saudi-arabia-linked-911/story?id=15827925#.T1AXz8w5ly4
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

I'm very curious to see your response.

[aboutime]

I remember the Halliburton/Brown and Root days, when I was younger, watchin these ole boys comin back from Iran, with all these gold rings and tax free dollars, from a career in the middle east and just fillin out their retirement papers. I still have Iranian acquaintances, from the days of the shah, who were bein trained to fly fighters in the U.S.

Sure theirs lots of ties and connections, but I think our negotiating and diplomatic skills have died off with the shah, with our own political malfeasance, exacerbating the divides, but that doesn't mean we should pander to any middle eastern country, by bowing to them or turnin the other cheek. We're quite good, or at least we used to be, at financial warfare and it's time to hit all them moozlum bassturds, no matter their social positions, who are complicit in acts of terror, right where it hurts the most..........the pocketbook!!!


Granny. Once again. I can't disagree with anything you stated above. But, I am a pragmatic, realistic kind of guy who faces, and accepts the KNOWN, KNOWN'S..as Rumsfeld used to say.

Truth is, and not taking anything away from what you said. UNTIL, and only UNTIL we find 535 Honest, Americans who can Honestly, and Faithfully become Members of the U.S. Congress that is controlled by WE THE PEOPLE, and not the Career incentives of the Generally Rich who become members of Congress. WE will never get CONGRESS to agree with, or Instruct Any President to do anything but PANDER, and APPEASE those (as you call them) Towel Headed Rich, Ignorant, Hateful Moozlums.

[Drummond]

Drummond look, i have no loyalties to the left or right.
I know thats hard for you to accept but it's true.

Got it. You just 'happen' to consistently argue Left-wing, or Left-wing 'friendly', arguments ...

That's quite a coincidence you've got going there, Revelarts !


as far as the info being sourced from the "independent" goes,
well 1st of all you may want to try paying more attention to the content then the original source which in this case is a former Governor, Senator and 911 commission member and others and the docs he saw collected by the FBI.

Perhaps - or, perhaps not.

Publications cherrypick according to whatever overriding agenda, or institutionalised bias(es), govern them. And the more unscrupulous ones edit to create their favoured impressions. The Guardian did this, a handful of years ago, to an O'Reilly Factor transcript.

I later found out that they cut out a large chunk of it, to make it appear that O'Reilly was censoring the interviewee, when in fact he wasn't.

So, you see, if you just rely on one publication without at least cross-referencing (especially Leftie ones, naturally) you might be getting only a part of the truth.


Maybe the FBI is to left wing for you to believe I don't know.

Neither do I, one way or the other.


Did you look that far or did you just ignore my other links and saw "the independent" and assume it was all lies because it came a from paper you don't like?
frankly i don't get that. at all.

I assumed BIAS.


but here's the SAME information from
World Net Daily which is thoroughly Right wing, and try to put a spin on it.
from a FOX news affiliate.
from ABC news
and from the Atlantic magazine
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/911-report-could-sink-possible-gop-presidential-candidate/
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/26511322/2014/09/11/former-senator-government-hiding-full-911-story
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senators-saudi-arabia-linked-911/story?id=15827925#.T1AXz8w5ly4
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

I'm very curious to see your response.

Well done.

But I'm far from satisfied. What we consistently have from your additional links seems to be a lot of 'we have questions but no answers'.

Which proves precisely .. WHAT ?

OK, so (and I note that Democrats are heavily involved in this !!) I see that Senators have questions. They do NOT have answers (!!), but that doesn't stop them from not only jumping to conclusions, but doing so very publicly.

What's more, they're doing this now, THIRTEEN YEARS AFTER THE EVENT !!

I'm suspicious of initiatives like this which take THIRTEEN years to materialise ! Conspiracy theories are fed by hefty time lapses, during which time passes to allow for confusion, or the fomenting of the right climate for maximum receptiveness.

[aboutime]

Got it. You just 'happen' to consistently argue Left-wing, or Left-wing 'friendly', arguments ...

That's quite a coincidence you've got going there, Revelarts !



Perhaps - or, perhaps not.

Publications cherrypick according to whatever overriding agenda, or institutionalised bias(es), govern them. And the more unscrupulous ones edit to create their favoured impressions. The Guardian did this, a handful of years ago, to an O'Reilly Factor transcript.

I later found out that they cut out a large chunk of it, to make it appear that O'Reilly was censoring the interviewee, when in fact he wasn't.

So, you see, if you just rely on one publication without at least cross-referencing (especially Leftie ones, naturally) you might be getting only a part of the truth.



Neither do I, one way or the other.



I assumed BIAS.



Well done.

But I'm far from satisfied. What we consistently have from your additional links seems to be a lot of 'we have questions but no answers'.

Which proves precisely .. WHAT ?

OK, so (and I note that Democrats are heavily involved in this !!) I see that Senators have questions. They do NOT have answers (!!), but that doesn't stop them from not only jumping to conclusions, but doing so very publicly.

What's more, they're doing this now, THIRTEEN YEARS AFTER THE EVENT !!

I'm suspicious of initiatives like this which take THIRTEEN years to materialise ! Conspiracy theories are fed by hefty time lapses, during which time passes to allow for confusion, or the fomenting of the right climate for maximum receptiveness.


Sir Drummond. It seems rev spends much of his time here...trying to CONVINCE himself that everything he says Must be accepted by everyone else. Or...his left leaning idea's of denial, become questionable truth.

[revelarts]

...
Perhaps - or, perhaps not.
Publications cherrypick according to whatever overriding agenda, or institutionalised bias(es), govern them. And the more unscrupulous ones edit to create their favoured impressions. The Guardian did this, a handful of years ago, to an O'Reilly Factor transcript.

I later found out that they cut out a large chunk of it, to make it appear that O'Reilly was censoring the interviewee, when in fact he wasn't.

So, you see, if you just rely on one publication without at least cross-referencing (especially Leftie ones, naturally) you might be getting only a part of the truth.

Neither do I, one way or the other.
I assumed BIAS.
Well done.
But I'm far from satisfied. What we consistently have from your additional links seems to be a lot of 'we have questions but no answers'.
Which proves precisely .. WHAT ?
OK, so (and I note that Democrats are heavily involved in this !!) I see that Senators have questions. They do NOT have answers (!!), but that doesn't stop them from not only jumping to conclusions, but doing so very publicly.
What's more, they're doing this now, THIRTEEN YEARS AFTER THE EVENT !!

I'm suspicious of initiatives like this which take THIRTEEN years to materialise ! Conspiracy theories are fed by hefty time lapses, during which time passes to allow for confusion, or the fomenting of the right climate for maximum receptiveness.

Drummond
your not being honest, YOU have questions, the senator said
"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia.”

It's based on the evidence that BUSH Classified. That's one reason why it's 13 years after the fact... well 12 years, the senator mentioned this last year and maybe earlier.

But lets go with your assessment.

Do you want to find out?
I don't understand you attitude here. You claim to want to fight terror everywhere but when someone points to hard evidence of possible 9-11 terrorist your making excuses for them instead of saying something along the line of
"THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED TO THE NTH DEGREE AND THE GUILTY BROUGHT TO JUDGMENT!!!" TORTURE WHO EVER WE NEED TO TO GET TO BOTTOM OF THIS!!"

So do you want to investigate and see if the Saudis gov't DID indeed have a hand in 9-11? or you do feel comfortable just assuming the best of the Saudis. and giving them the benefit of the doubt?
they are pretty conservative in their own way i suppose... burke laws, beheading criminals, women can't drive.
so investigate further yes or no?
And if they are found guilty do you believe they deserve the pain that you want to rain down on Isis and AQ animals? since you say oil is not that important?

[revelarts]

Got it. You just 'happen' to consistently argue Left-wing, or Left-wing 'friendly', arguments ...
That's quite a coincidence you've got going there, Revelarts !....
you obviously haven't read a broad spectrum of my post.

And you have a very broad idea of what's "liberal" (anything you don't agree with?) and very narrow view of "conservative".
I'd consider you a sort of neo-con. not really a conservative in the historical sense.

[revelarts]

Sir Drummond. It seems rev spends much of his time here...trying to CONVINCE himself that everything he says Must be accepted by everyone else. Or...his left leaning idea's of denial, become questionable truth.

Seems to me facts and logic should move people but that doesn't work for everyone. does it AT?

and AT you seem to be following me around again.
I haven't replied any of your swipes at me for some time now but you keep running up behind me with these BS comments.
if you've got some facts or a logical comment I'd be happy to reply but if not please leave off your petty attempts at digs.

[Drummond]

Drummond
your not being honest, YOU have questions, the senator said
"I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia.”

And what does 'direct line' actually MEAN .. ??

It's way too vague. It might just mean that they swapped chess moves on the Internet ....

Fact is, both you and the senator are filling in supposed 'blanks' with your imaginings.


t's based on the evidence that BUSH Classified. That's one reason why it's 13 years after the fact... well 12 years, the senator mentioned this last year and maybe earlier.

Oh, this is a conspiracy theory that may only be TWELVE years old, not thirteen ? OK, that obviously lends far greater credibility to it all ... :rolleyes:

The fact STILL remains that a very substantial period has passed before anyone started out shouting 'CONSPIRACY'. But then, extremely long timespans are a prerequisite for the enhanced chance that SOMEONE, ANYONE, ANYWHERE, might start to believe this stuff.


But lets go with your assessment.

Do you want to find out?

IS there anything to find out ?

Something happens. Years pass (.. because they MUST ..) ... memories dim ... perspectives are muted, skewed over time .. and only AFTER all this has happened, some bright spark or other comes up with the idea that some dastardly goings-on might've been afoot .... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

... not BEFORE all this time. Never BEFORE. Always a very long time AFTERWARDS.


I don't understand you attitude here. You claim to want to fight terror everywhere but when someone points to hard evidence of possible 9-11 terrorist your making excuses for them instead of saying something along the line of
"THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED TO THE NTH DEGREE AND THE GUILTY BROUGHT TO JUDGMENT!!!" TORTURE WHO EVER WE NEED TO TO GET TO BOTTOM OF THIS!!"

WHAT HARD EVIDENCE ??

All I've seen, when you get down to it, are if's, buts and maybes. There are demands made for the release of so-called information, BECAUSE it is LACKING.

You, Revelarts, prefer to inhabit the world of 'maybes' and 'what ifs' .. rather than the present day world. A world where - today - we're paying a heavy price for Obama's cutting and running from Iraq. It's given this 'ISIS' bunch of thugs an opening. One which is spreading death and misery around.

This is happening TODAY, IT IS A CURRENT PROBLEM. And what do YOU do ? Lament a so-called 'illegal' war (a bog standard Leftie argument), and go diving into the past looking for evidence of something not now relevant to current problems.

And this IS typical of the Left. Why be realistic enough to tackle a current problem head-on, when instead you can try for an opportunity at sideswiping political opponents ??


So do you want to investigate and see if the Saudis gov't DID indeed have a hand in 9-11?

I'm not satisfied that there's anything to investigate.

But this I do know. Now, there's the chance to forge an alliance, gain a new friend, and benefit from it. The Saudis, for all you say, have suffered attacks from Al Qaeda, and their current policy is opposition to them, AND, ditto ISIS.

You can take advantage of this. Or, for the sake of attacking an old home-grown political adversary, you could instead throw it all away and work towards ensuring that your chosen enemy IS one, and will REMAIN one.

If you really do get proof of what you can only ALLEGE is true right now, that's maybe different. But I have to observe that you seem a little too keen to guarantee that toxic relations remain so. There is a real and very visible, obvious enemy out there, and you want to divert from that, to chase after what may be mere phantoms.

REAL enemy, now ? Or, a POSSIBLE past enemy ? Which deserves our attention more ?

Or is propaganda just way too important to a Leftie for REAL and URGENT matters to get any kind of priority ??

[Gaffer]

So rev says the saudi's are responsible for 911. But as I recall he was big on supporting the theory that Bush did it, it was all an inside job and that explosives were planted in the building to bring them down. I'd have to go searching but I recall him arguing with Jim over this stuff and now it's the saudi's.

I'm sure Nazi Boy will be here soon to say it was the Jews.

[aboutime]

Seems to me facts and logic should move people but that doesn't work for everyone. does it AT?

and AT you seem to be following me around again.
I haven't replied any of your swipes at me for some time now but you keep running up behind me with these BS comments.
if you've got some facts or a logical comment I'd be happy to reply but if not please leave off your petty attempts at digs.


Oh, but I do have One Fact, and logical comment, despite your accusations of following you around. And that fact is. Your 'BS'.

[jimnyc]

So rev says the saudi's are responsible for 911. But as I recall he was big on supporting the theory that Bush did it, it was all an inside job and that explosives were planted in the building to bring them down. I'd have to go searching but I recall him arguing with Jim over this stuff and now it's the saudi's.

I'm sure Nazi Boy will be here soon to say it was the Jews.

Oh yes, many MANY many discussions about 9/11 and various topics. I guess this direct line to 9/11 was their money paying GWB and others to fake everything and cover it up? :laugh2:

And yes, the theory was that it was explosives that brought down the buildings, or at least one of them.

[revelarts]

Amazing, I point to U.S. gov't officials in congress, the FBI and CIA who say they know that the Saudi govt was involved in 911.
and you all attack the "sources" and my so-called political position and my old post and me personally.
but NO ONE here has attacked Saudi Arabia but make excuses of them and Bush and downplay the reports.

While many of you in other threads call for the of blood terrorist everywhere asap.
And say that those who don't want to drone, torture suspects and take the rights away from Americans are setting us up for destruction.

I have to say your NOT consistent, not even close.
and as i've mentioned before republicans don't like to outright lie they TRY to cover their hypocrisy with a pitiful THIN veil of facts and unknowns, turn a blind eye to contrary info and wrapped themselves in the flag claiming it's all for the greater security of the country anyway.

If that's the way you want to roll that's on you. but don't try to sell me on the idea that you REALLY believe that terrorist must be caught and stopped at any cost and by breaking any rules including the Constitution and ASAP.
Frankly some of you are full of crap here. IMHO.

But OK Fine fellas, IGNORE Saudi Arabia and pretend there's nothing to see here. and keep RAH RAHing for the "war on terror" while our supposed ally has the blood of 2000+ Americans on his hands and is watching his fellow whabbi "muslim" countrymen supply our enemies with our money. and teach their children to hate the US in their most radial of schools around the world.

there nothing to see here,
revelarts is the one that needs to be attacked.:rolleyes:


9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Keane has previously called for the declassification (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/movement-declassify-911-materials-gathers-momentum.html) of the secret 28 pages of the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry, and said that 60-70% of what was classified shouldn’t have been classified in the first place (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/movement-declassify-911-materials-gathers-momentum.html).

The New Yorker reported (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages) last week:
Thomas Kean remembers finally having the opportunity to read those twenty-eight pages after he became chairman of the 9/11 Commission—“so secret that I had to get all of my security clearances and go into the bowels of Congress with someone looking over my shoulder.” He also remembers thinking at the time that most of what he was reading should never have been kept secret. But the focus on the twenty-eight pages obscures the fact that many important documents are still classified—“a ton of stuff,” Kean told me, including, for instance, the 9/11 Commission’s interviews with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton. “I don’t know of a single thing in our report that should not be public after ten years,” Kean said.


9/11 Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton agrees (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/warning-war-supporters.html).
And so does 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer. As the New Yorker writes:
“In some ways, it’s more dangerous today,” Timothy Roemer, who was a member of both the Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission, observed. “A more complex series of threats are coming together than even before 9/11, involving <small>ISIS</small>, Al Qaeda, and cyber-terrorist capabilities. The more the American people know about what happened thirteen years ago, the more we can have a credible, open debate” about our security needs. Releasing the twenty-eight pages, he said, might be a step forward. “Hopefully, after some initial shock and awe, it would make our process work better. Our government has an obligation to do this.”

And others who have seen the classified 9/11 materials agree that we can’t move forward with an effective security program until the American people know what’s in the classified materials. The New Yorker adds:
Thomas Massie, aRepublican congressman from Kentucky and a sponsor of the House resolution to declassify the material, told me that the experience of reading those twenty-eight pages caused him to rethink how to handle the rise of <small>ISIS</small>. It has made him much more cautious about a military response. “We have to be careful, when we run the calculations of action, what the repercussions will be,” he said.


The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Senator Bob Graham – notes (http://youtu.be/00z2C5LiOsc?t=19m18s):
Although it’s been more than a decade ago when this horrific event occurred, I think [the questions of who supported the attacks] have real consequences to U.S. actions today.....



"Rethink" the war on terror on Isis, maybe no military response?!
he must be turning LEFTIE!!!

no one would REthink anything after getting new information.
doesn't he know that were alll gonna die if we don't use the military?

[jimnyc]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e389/KalliJ/BloodyKeyboard.gif

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e389/KalliJ/BloodyKeyboard.gif

^^^^ So you did find Jafar.... :rofl1:

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/icDSjSEC1YI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/01/former-senator-says-huge-breakthrough-is-coming-with-classified-911-information/




Almost 12 years after it was published, 28 pages of a 9/11 intelligence report are still classified, but some congressional members are pushing for declassification.
According to former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who has seen the entire document, the classified pages expose “a larger effort to cover up Saudi activity in 9/11.”
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) also says the pages deal with Saudi connections, and believes “it was the influence of the Bush administration to classify those pages.”
Litigation from 9/11 victims’ families against the Saudi government has been held up, but a federal appellate court recently overturned the Saudi defense of sovereign immunity.
Eighty thousand pages of information on a Saudi family that disappeared days before the 9/11 attacks have been turned over to the courts through a Freedom of Information Act request.


♦ ♦ ♦
.....Their effort has since gained slow but steady steam, seeing members like freshman Rep. Thomas Massie (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/30/congressman-massie-there-will-be-anger-frustration-and-embarrassment-when-redacted-pages-of-911-report-come-out/) (R-Ky.) join in and Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) sign on this week as well, Jones said.

But why were those pages classified to begin with? And who decided to classify them at such a level that even members of Congress have to seek special permission to view them?

“It was part of a larger effort to cover up Saudi activity in 9/11.”


Jones told TheBlaze the classified pages reveal information specifically about Saudi Arabian connections to the White House and more, and that’s why they have been kept under wraps.
“I think it was the influence of the Bush administration to classify those pages, and that [they believed] those 28 pages of the report needed to be classified,” Jones said.

....

“None of the people leading this investigation think it is credible that 19 people — most who could not speak English and did not have previous experience in the United States — could carry out such a complicated task without external assistance,” Graham told TheBlaze....

[aboutime]

Another reason Jim should consider an entire section of this forum dedicated to ONLY Conspiracy Theory Junkies.