Should we Attack Saudi Arabia

[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.

[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.

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/inves...erup/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. --Tyr

[revelarts]

"Sunni Muslims commit more terrorist acts worldwide than any other group.
For example, the National Counterterrorism Center’s 2011 Report on Terrorism 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 (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 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 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, this and this.

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 and other hydrocarbons.)
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 to do anything about it....."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...r-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/201...s-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/201...s-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.