I have come to think that it has not much to do with Iraq and everything to do with Saudi Arabia as the main supporter of terror on the planet.
The Saudi's began establishing state supported terror twenty-five years ago by the establishing of STATE SUPPORTED AND SPONSORED schools world wide who's purpose was to destroy secularism and teach Islam as the only form of government.
This was basically an adoption of the document that came out of the united Islamic response to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. There were several documents drafted and adopted that became known over time as the "Afghanistan Jihad" or similar such titles. Saudi Arabia took itself to establish Madrassas to teach the doctrine of elimination of secularism. Because? Basically because the USSR was "religiously secular" and anti-religious.
The fall of the USSR posed a problem. They no longer filled the roll of "Powerful, Hated Enemy" that all extremists need if they are to succeed.
So "All things 'Western' " became the enemy. The movement could then proceed as planned.
So the result were dozens of attacks that kill many people. The thing to realize is that these killings were not killings of "people", but of "infadels". Infadels are enemies. And to be killed.
Then came 11 Sept.
The US sat down dozens of the smartest people in the world and said. "What do we do? We must fight this threat, but what to do?"
They made a list of "nation states" who support terror.
1 - Afghanistan.
2 - Saudi Arabia
3 - Syria
4 - Iran
5 - Lybia
6 - Iraq
7 - North Korea
8 - China
and on down the line of about sixty dictatorships.
So what do you do? Besides make your list?
First, take out Afghanistan. That is difficult but doable. You establish a democratic nation in place of an absolutely horrible Totalitarian Islamic state.
Second. Hmmm. The Saudi's control OPEC. Thus the economy of the world. Invade them and take over? What will the world say about "oil" and imperialism. Can't really "invade" them. So what can you do?
You ask them for permission to use them as a launching point for an invasion of Iraq. Saudi's hate Saddam. He is a secularist heathen. Should work. Right?
No. The Saudi's are horrified. They don't want a free nation right next to them. Never. How will they continue supporting terror? So they not too politely say "No" to the US.
So what do you do? Well, you say "Ok. We don't need you. Maybe we will have to look at who is really supporting terror. We are aware of what you are doing. Get ready for a very miserable time." And you invade and conquor Iraq.
The Saudi's don't worry too much. They have hired the best western minds in the world and none of them think the Americans are that crazy. But the Americans are that crazy. When the Saudi's realize that the jig is up and that the game is about to end, they suddenly offer to allow a single air field. AND THEN THE ROYAL FAMILY IS IMMEDIATELY AND HARSHLY ATTACKED BY Al Quaida FOR THE FIRST TIME. THEY FIGHT OFF SEVERAL ASSASINATION ATTEMPTS IN THE FIRST WEEK.
So the US has now made an enemy for the Royal family. An enemy they supported is now out to kill them. Ooops.
And then you move on down the list. About one nation every five years. If the Royal family of Saudi Arabia is murdered? Good. They are your enemy. You can then take over and establish another democracy. And if they survive? That's OK. Their time is coming to an end. They can and will never support their totalitarian rule for long once their people see that there is a better way by watching Iraq.
In summary. Iraq is just a tool to use against Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Lybia.
It has already done it's job against Lybia.
And it has worked pretty good against Saudi Arabia. At least the terrorists are now trying to kill it's rulers. Progress.
Maybe. I will admit that this never occured to me until after the fact. But I really do think now that US leaders MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE WAS NO WMD and didn't care. It was never about Iraq, and everything to do with the "List".
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe part that they must have known there was no WMD. Why were they in such a hurry when Blix was already inspecting and the Iraqis were reluctantly complying? Also, isn't it true that much of al quada(sp) is made up of Saudis?
I have come to think that it has not much to do with Iraq and everything to do with Saudi Arabia as the main supporter of terror on the planet.
The Saudi's began establishing state supported terror twenty-five years ago by the establishing of STATE SUPPORTED AND SPONSORED schools world wide who's purpose was to destroy secularism and teach Islam as ...[text shortened]... RE WAS NO WMD and didn't care. It was never about Iraq, and everything to do with the "List".
I think what you say isn't far from the truth, it seems that elements in Saudi Arabia do want to overthrow the rulers for many reasons, one of which is collaborating with the demonized West.
For the US to suddenly publicly turn against the Sauds could have many pitfalls, for example the rise of a Taliban-like regime in its place.
Tricky ...
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBack in November 1979, about the time the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Islamic militants occupied the heart of Mecca as part of a plot to overthrow the Saudi royal family.The leader denounced "the oppression of the Saudi people, the economical, moral, social reduction of the country, the riches squandered by the princes.¨ Several hundred were killed before control was regained. This is where your 25 years come from.
I have come to think that it has not much to do with Iraq and everything to do with Saudi Arabia as the main supporter of terror on the planet.
The Saudi's began establishing state supported terror twenty-five years ago by the esta ...[text shortened]... . It was never about Iraq, and everything to do with the "List".
Although the royal family beheaded any militants not killed in the attack, the militants gained their objectives. To prevent the militants gaining strength, the Royal family completely gave in and created a state which crushes any liberal ideas. Woman are not allowed to drive, alcohol is banned, and the Imans were paid enormous sums to set up mosques and schools not just in Saudi but in other countries from Afghanistan to Indonesia. The royals paid off the militants - who then preached against the West and converted more militants and left the Royal family to amass billions. A sweet little deal for both parties that has worked now for 25 years, as you say.
As long as the oil flowed and was cheap, no-one cared. But the Saudis have managed to double the population and halve their GNP in the last thirty years. There are now large numbers of youth with few prospects, and the militancy has grown. It is no accident 19 out of 20 of the Sept 11hijackers plus Bin Laden were Saudis.
Your point about the Royal family being attacked by Al Quaida is true -- the militants are running a protection racket and if challenged, show their strength. I don´t think too many Saudis would fight to the death protecting the Royals though - which is why the Princes are playing both sides of the street - talking tough about crackdowns but keeping on pumping money to militant groups. I don´t think they can keep it up for much longer though.
Weren't there only 19 hijackers?
Also, hate to have to resort to using something that Micheal Moore pointed out, but the US is heavily reliant on Saudi money.
More like on 9/11 when the US was attacked, some people sat down, thought about it and decided to use it to acheive aims they had held for a long time.
If you want to bring Saudi into it, pre-1991 OBL offered the US help to fight Saddam, it was only when the US kept forces in Saudi Arabia that he began to fight against them. How would we like it if Turkey stationed a good size army in Italy or in Jerusalem?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell, you seem to have made one gaping ommission in your list of nations which support terrorism.
I have come to think that it has not much to do with Iraq and everything to do with Saudi Arabia as the main supporter of terror on the planet.
The Saudi's began establishing state supported terror twenty-five years ago by the establishing of STATE SUPPORTED AND SPONSORED schools world wide who's purpose was to destroy secularism and teach Islam as ...[text shortened]... RE WAS NO WMD and didn't care. It was never about Iraq, and everything to do with the "List".
The US of A.
They created the first terrorist: George Washington (first man ever to be labelled a terrorist...by the British no less).
They have supported various terrorist groups in the last 60 years. From the French underground against the Germans (yes, the Germans viewed them as terrorists), to terrorist movements in Vietnam through to terrorist movements agains the USSR (like Bin Laden).
The State of Georgia in the US is home to WHIMSC. Better known as: "The school of the Americas." This is a training camp for terrorists, generally in the central and southern American scope of operations.
Now, to be fair...Britain should also be on that list. There is sufficiant evidence to pin the British government to Unionist terrorist organisations in the 80's and early 90's.
Of course this is called contra-terrorist activities...but supporting terrorism is supporting terrorism, no matter what you call it.
The idea that terrorism is bad is something of late. Lots of terrorists actually have been very useful to society at large.
George Washington
The Dutch resistance during WWII
Nelson Mandela
To name but a few.
I think it's also up for discussion if Bin Laden is actually a force of evil or a force for good. I know in the current climate it's very difficult to objectivly discuss the matter, but as I wrote a couple of days ago...his list of killings falls way short of the list of killings done by the US and Britain the last year or so. So who's worse?
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't disagree with much of your post, but I don't think that there is any doubt that Bin Laden is not a force for good.
I think it's also up for discussion if Bin Laden is actually a force of evil or a force for good. I know in the current climate it's very difficult to objectivly discuss the matter, but as I wrote a couple of days ago...his list of kill ...[text shortened]... s done by the US and Britain the last year or so. So who's worse?
All the examples of freedom fighters you cited (Mandela etc) were fighting to replace a repressive regime (in one form or another) with a relatively progressive regime (whether that was one free from the Nazis, Apartheid, British Colonialism or whatever).
With Bin Laden, his cause is about replacing one repressive regime with one which as at least equally repressive - Islamic Fundamentalism.
I don't think you can reduce this to an arithmetic matter - he's not killed so many as US-sponsorred terrorism so he can't be as bad isn't an argument that really holds up.
I think you have to look at what Bin Laden's objectives are.
Say, to take a hypothetical example, the French Resistance to the Nazis in WW2 aimed to set up there own fascist state rather than just uniting around the objective of liberating France. Then, I hope you'll agree, they wouldn't be worthy of support.
First, take out Afghanistan. That is difficult but doable. You establish a democratic nation in place of an absolutely horrible Totalitarian Islamic state.eeerm... last I heard Afganistan was not a democratic nation, but in a worse state being run in fragments by rival militaryand religeous groups that make the Taliban look like faries. I got the impression that Afganistan had been shredded and left to the wolves.
What no one has mentioned is that sanctions work. Libya is proof of that. I know W claims it was because they were scared that they were next, but that's just plain George W. Bush crap. He claims that the sanctions against Iraq were ineffective, but sanctions don't work in a couple of years. It takes many, many years. Libya, after nearly thirty years of sanctions, finally said, "Screw this, let's step up to the table and join the rest of the world." Personally, I don't think it had anything to do with the US in Iraq. Had we taken this approach, well, a whole lot of people would still be alive, American and Iraqi. Now with the military approach we have destabalized the world and made thousands of new terrorist, eroding [B][I]our[/I][/B] way of life.
<-- This is just a rant -->
THE WORLD DIDN'T CHANGE AFTER 9/11, WE JUST JOINED THE WORLD!!!!!
Sorry... just saw some jackass on t.v.
Originally posted by steerpikeThank you for your contribution sir.
Back in November 1979, about the time the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Islamic militants occupied the heart of Mecca as part of a plot to overthrow the Saudi royal family.The leader denounced "the oppression of the Saudi people, the econ ...[text shortened]... roups. I don´t think they can keep it up for much longer though.
To reinforce my point in this thread, I think that taking Iraq puts a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia in several ways.
First is the direct threat of eventual US intervention by land.
Second is the insinuated threat that should the Facists ever kill off the Royals, the US will be in Rihadh in about Fifteen hours.
Third is the diplomatic notification that they are on a short leash. Either stop supporting terror or you are next. This takes a very subtle form. The reason I think it happened is that the Saudi govt. has hired two of the biggest PR firms in NYC to represent them and help slant american opinion to their "magnanimous" nature. This and the fact that until this war in Iraq, the saudi embassador to the US never even spoke english. Now he is more fluent than I and is on a different TV channel every night touting the Saudi support of everything we do.
I need to do some research on my own, but there is a book out called "America's Secret War" that claims we have shut down over 2 thousand terror supporting/funding operations centered in Saudi Arabia since March 2001. I can't confirm that though. Just in that book.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou have a funny idea of what a terrorist is.
Well, you seem to have made one gaping ommission in your list of nations which support terrorism.
The US of A.
They created the first terrorist: George Washington (first man ever to be labelled a terrorist...by the British no less).
They have supported various terrorist groups in the last 60 years. From the French underground against the German ...[text shortened]... y short of the list of killings done by the US and Britain the last year or so. So who's worse?
Is not a terrorist "one willing and anxious to DELIBERATELY kill innocents, in the absence of warning" to achieve establishment of a facist state or a totalitarian regime?
In the context of our modern world? As per Al Queda vs. US?
Especially since in your opinion, the US already is a facist state?
Wouldn't we then be considered as something more than "terrorists"?
Say... "Mega Terror Nation" or something?
In which case beware. We might start nuking innocent "nations" at any moment. In other words, I think you are way off subject here.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo you have a funny idea of what a terrorist is.
You have a funny idea of what a terrorist is.
Is not a terrorist "one willing and anxious to DELIBERATELY kill innocents, in the absence of warning" to achieve establishment of a facist state or a totalitarian regime?
In the co ...[text shortened]... any moment. In other words, I think you are way off subject here.
From dictionary.com:
Terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
So any uprising against a government no matter how justified is by definition terrorism. The French Resistance of World War II was terrorism, they were also insurgents. I could continue like this.
The only way the US invasion of Iraq escapes the definition is by being organized.
Originally posted by XanthosNZoops. Sorry. I could have sworn that when a "nation" invades and conquors another that it is called "war". Sorry. I had no idea that it was terrorism.
No you have a funny idea of what a terrorist is.
From dictionary.com:
Terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group ag ...[text shortened]... US invasion of Iraq escapes the definition is by being organized.
So, you are saying that it is now ok to start nuking switzerland because we "want to be on al-jazeera" and install Christ as the ruler of all governments?
Must be. We are a "group" after all.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyDid you read my post? Or did you pick up a couple of words and guess what I was saying?
oops. Sorry. I could have sworn that when a "nation" invades and conquors another that it is called "war". Sorry. I had no idea that it was terrorism.
So, you are saying that it is now ok to start nuking switzerland because we "want to be on al-jazeera" and install Christ as the ruler of all governments?
Must be. We are a "group" after all.
I just have no clue what the second paragraph is about. It makes zero sense.
Originally posted by XanthosNZScale.
Did you read my post? Or did you pick up a couple of words and guess what I was saying?
I just have no clue what the second paragraph is about. It makes zero sense.
Let me try to help.
A nation committs "war".
A small group not empowered as a "nation" commits terror.
The us is at "War". Your inference that we are "terrorists" then implies that we should begin killing innocent "nations". Scale.
Terrorist "groups" kill like sized "groups". Will not a terrorist nation do the same? Shouldn't it?