Jump to content

Closer Look at our Saudi "Allies"


Recommended Posts

I'm still trying to figure out how the Saudi airstrikes freed their "Al Qaeda buddies". Did those strikes like destroy a prison wall?

Destablize a country, destroy the infrastructure , let the extremist thugs run wild doing your sectarian dirty work (against a foe whose no threat to US). Replace them with a foe who is a threat to US, now US must come in and clean up the mess that's been made. This is what happened with Assad in Syria (no threat to US), vacuum created after country destablized by Saudi influence, ISIS gains hold, US forced to come in and act. Sadly Same thing playing out in Yemen now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Destablize a country, destroy the infrastructure , let the extremist thugs run wild doing your sectarian dirty work (against a foe whose no threat to US). Replace them with a foe who is a threat to US, now US must come in and clean up the mess that's been made. This is what happened with Assad in Syria (no threat to US), vacuum created after country destablized by Saudi influence, ISIS gains hold, US forced to come in and act. Sadly Same thing playing out in Yemen now

 

 

So just where would you draw the famous line in the sand; the line that marks the point where the US must get involved for the sake of allies, moral and ethical positions, and common sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So just where would you draw the famous line in the sand; the line that marks the point where the US must get involved for the sake of allies, moral and ethical positions, and common sense?

 

In my book, we shouldn't draw any lines.

 

This sunni/shia blood feud is an ideal situation IMO. As long as they're killing each other, they're not killing us. Also, if some fool wants to go join ISIS, let them. If they try to come back, THEN you arrest them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So just where would you draw the famous line in the sand; the line that marks the point where the US must get involved for the sake of allies, moral and ethical positions, and common sense?

no matter where, not intervening in a sectarian war -- particularly when the "side" we're on is more closely related to those who've done us harm -- is surely short of it. heck even saudi's ally pakistan wants no part of it

 

Pakistan MPs speak out against intervention in Yemen

 

Opposition Senator Tahir Hussain Mashadi said the "aggressors" were the Saudis and the victims were the Yemenis.

"Now the aggressors are asking another sovereign state, Pakistan, to come to provide military aid to Saudi Arabia."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/us-yemen-security-pakistan-iran-idUSKBN0MZ08D20150408

Edited by JTSP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is no point at which the US should get involved...? Not to protect US citizens, nor US military bases, nor US embassies, nor, maybe, Cleveland; just let it all happen w/o responding to any egregious actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

An ISIS-claimed attack in Texas...? Well, at least it's not in the midwest or New York, so let's remain calm and not draw any lines nor consider stamping out the scourge where it lives in the Middle East...eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you expound on this? You might have hit a real point here. Do dictators ignore legislative bodies and do whatever the !@#$ they want? Do they also give the finger to the courts and still do what they want? Do they illegally go after their political opponents with the full force of the government while letting their cronies slide? Do they waste their countries treasures on their own pleasures? Tell me, are they so wrapped up in their own edification that they really don't give a schit about foreign policy and are willing to put our country in danger?

Don't be a kitty and answer each question please.

 

Iran's Supreme Ayatollah is a fine example of a dictator, and an on-point answer to your questions. I think of Iran's Ayatollah as one end of the dictatorship continuum and our current POTUS as somewhere to the right of Iran's leader.

 

For example, POTUS rammed the ACA through by ignoring an entire elected group's points of view; POTUS ignores the laws of the land regarding immigration; Under POTUS' direction the IRS attacked right-leaning charities; POTUS continues to ignore Iran's blatant agenda in hopes of concluding a fool's purse agreement on nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Sunday Times report suggests that Saudi Arabia has already taken the decision to acquire a nuclear device from its ally Pakistan.

The report quotes an anonymous US defence official as saying: “There has been a longstanding agreement in place with the Pakistanis [over nuclear weapons] and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-plans-to-buy-pakistani-nuclear-weapon-10257964.html

 

 

I don't know if this anything new I've heard rumors about Saudis getting nukes from Pakistan for the last 6-7 years ........... just like I've heard about Iran being a few months from a nuclear weapon for years and years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-plans-to-buy-pakistani-nuclear-weapon-10257964.html

 

 

I don't know if this anything new I've heard rumors about Saudis getting nukes from Pakistan for the last 6-7 years ........... just like I've heard about Iran being a few months from a nuclear weapon for years and years.

Where did you hear this about Iran, Wikipedia or Youtube? Regardless, can anyone blame the Saudis for wanting the capability to deter Iran now that Obama has given them the green light to have nukes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you hear this about Iran, Wikipedia or Youtube? Regardless, can anyone blame the Saudis for wanting the capability to deter Iran now that Obama has given them the green light to have nukes?

Deter Iran? Its what the heck is deterring Saudis we need to be concerned with

 

Saudi Arabia

 

Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism,[90] which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton.[91] According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."[92]

 

The violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is partly bankrolled by wealthy, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.[91] Three other Arab countries which are listed as sources of militant money are Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, all neighbors of Saudi Arabia. Taliban and their militant partners the Haqqani network earn "significant funds" through UAE-based businesses. Kuwait is described as a "source of funds and a key transit point" for al-Qaida and other militant groups.[91][93] 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.[91][94] According to studies, most of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis.[95][96][97] 15 of the 19 hijackers of the four airliners who were responsible for 9/11 originated from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.[98] Osama bin Laden was a Saudi by birth. His family is a wealthy one intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family.

 

Starting in the mid-1970s the Islamic resurgence was funded by an abundance of money from Saudi Arabian oil exports.[99] The tens of billions of dollars in "petro-Islam" largess obtained from the recently heightened price of oil funded an estimated "90% of the expenses of the entire faith."[100]

 

Throughout the Sunni Muslim world, religious institutions for people both young and old, from children's maddrassas to high-level scholarships received Saudi funding,[101] "books, scholarships, fellowships, and mosques" (for example, "more than 1500 mosques were built and paid for with money obtained from public Saudi funds over the last 50 years"),[102] along with training in the Kingdom for the preachers and teachers who went on to teach and work at these universities, schools, mosques, etc.[103] The funding was also used to reward journalists and academics who followed the Saudis' strict interpretation of Islam; and satellite campuses were built around Egypt for Al Azhar, the world's oldest and most influential Islamic university.[104]

 

The interpretation of Islam promoted by this funding was the strict, conservative Saudi-based Wahhabism or Salafism. In its harshest form it preached that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way," but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake," that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century," that Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslims were "infidels", etc.[105] While this effort has by no means converted all, or even most, Muslims to the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam, it has done much to overwhelm more moderate local interpretations, and has set the Saudi-interpretation of Islam as the "gold standard" of religion in Muslims' minds.[106]

 

Critics[who?] have argued that by its nature, Wahhabism encourages intolerance and promotes terrorism.[107] Former CIA director James Woolsey described it as "the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing."[108]

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

Edited by JTSP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read that the purpose of letting Iraq fall is to divide the country into 3 pieces. Isis will control a third. I think the Sunnis(not sure of that one) gets another third and the Saudis will control the last third giving them an enhanced presence there. Kinda like the US has Israel there as a satellite. When things don't make sense it opens everything up to all kinds of speculation. All I believe is the destabilization of Libya, Syria and others is not a unforeseen consequence.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read that the purpose of letting Iraq fall is to divide the country into 3 pieces. Isis will control a third. I think the Sunnis(not sure of that one) gets another third and the Saudis will control the last third giving them an enhanced presence there. Kinda like the US has Israel there as a satellite. When things don't make sense it opens everything up to all kinds of speculation. All I believe is the destabilization of Libya, Syria and others is not a unforeseen consequence.

Shiite, Sunni, Kurd are the three pieces you are looking for - the Saudi would have influence in the Sunni sector along with ISIS - Iran would continue to have influence in the Shiite sector - The independent Kurdish state would have Turkey pissed off along with Iran and probably a few other countries in fear of a greater Kurdistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work there house of saud. While their air force is killing civilians in neighboring Yemen .....

 

Yemen: At Least 80 Killed on Deadliest Day of Saudi-Led Strikes

 

http://m.democracynow.org/headlines/2015/5/28/41637

 

.... their army is bumping off Shiite mosques back home to the tune one a week....

 

ISIS claims 2nd Saudi mosque attack

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/29/middleeast/saudi-arabia-mosque-blast/

Edited by JTSP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...