NationStates Jolt Archive

Terrorist wave grows in Saudi Arabia

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5113734/

KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia - Thirty-five people, most of them foreigners, have been killed over the last six weeks in a dramatic, new style of terrorist attacks for this kingdom: bodies dragged on streets, traffic police blown up in their offices, hotel guests taken hostage and a chef shot outside an ATM.

The attacks are escalating despite an aggressive campaign by the government to root out terrorism, leaving many wondering whether the violence is just the beginning or — as the government insists — the last gasps of a desperate group reacting to the pressure of the hunt.

“It’s wrong what some in Saudi Arabia say ... that terrorism is taking its last breaths,” columnist Abdul-Rahman al-Rashed wrote Tuesday in the newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, after a 25-hour assault by militants left 22 people dead this weekend. “We truly do not know how big the stock of air that it has in reserve.”

Will this be Bush's NEXT battleground?

Eh, Saudi Arabia, it's a ploy for attention, I do believe. So, what if there's terrorist attacks there? They've helped funded them. Serves 'em right!

Canada is next!!!

We need to do a pre-emptive strike before they ice skate and ski across the boarder!


:D

Canada is next!!!

We need to do a pre-emptive strike before they ice skate and ski across the boarder!


:D
Bring it ON!!! :shock:

Eh, Saudi Arabia, it's a ploy for attention, I do believe. So, what if there's terrorist attacks there? They've helped funded them. Serves 'em right!

Well if the al-Saud regime falls to Islamic extremists, then not only would it likely deal a hammer-blow to the world economy, you would also be left with the terrifying prospect of a state with the wealth and resources of Saudi Arabia coupled with a burgeoning hostility towards the west that could manifest itself in all sorts of ways including state sponsored terrorism.

A little extreme perhaps - especially since the regime doesn't look in any real trouble just yet, but I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.

Eh, Saudi Arabia, it's a ploy for attention, I do believe. So, what if there's terrorist attacks there? They've helped funded them. Serves 'em right!

Well if the al-Saud regime falls to Islamic extremists, then not only would it likely deal a hammer-blow to the world economy, you would also be left with the terrifying prospect of a state with the wealth and resources of Saudi Arabia coupled with a burgeoning hostility towards the west that could manifest itself in all sorts of ways including state sponsored terrorism.

A little extreme perhaps - especially since the regime doesn't look in any real trouble just yet, but I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.
This is the problem. There has been 3 attacks in the past week or two and there were two more prior to that just after the Iraq War started.

These uprising could also play into Bush's re-election plans?

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?
We'll buy the massive Canadian Armed Forces and employ them as mercenaries.

Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?

While it may or may not be true that the US doesn't have enough manpower available, conscription wouldn't help. A big conscript army wouldn't mean that the US could suddenly do the job. It would just mean they'd have a big, crappy army. Conscripts are a zero or negative value to the modern US military.

More likely everything will be more clear in a few years and there will be no shortage of volunteers in the US, but also in other countries (Canada, France, Spain) after a few more September 11th-magnitude attacks in those countries. Its just crappy that we need to get kicked in the nuts repeatedly to learn.

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?
We'll buy the massive Canadian Armed Forces and employ them as mercenaries.

Canada currently has an armed forces?

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?
We'll buy the massive Canadian Armed Forces and employ them as mercenaries.

Canada currently has an armed forces?

yes they do, scary isn't it?

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?
We'll buy the massive Canadian Armed Forces and employ them as mercenaries.

Canada currently has an armed forces?

yes they do, scary isn't it?

no they dont. in fact, NYC has more police than people in the entire canadian military

I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.

I'm so completely desensitized to the idea of "terrorism" anymore, that it honest-to-God doesn't phase me.

*streaks into thread, pinches GV's bottom and runs out again*

*streaks into thread, pinches GV's bottom and runs out again*


nasty viper! :D

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?
We'll buy the massive Canadian Armed Forces and employ them as mercenaries.

Canada currently has an armed forces?

yes they do, scary isn't it?

no they dont. in fact, NYC has more police than people in the entire canadian military

That's because they are New Yorkers.

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?
We'll buy the massive Canadian Armed Forces and employ them as mercenaries.

Canada currently has an armed forces?

yes they do, scary isn't it?

no they dont. in fact, NYC has more police than people in the entire canadian military

Our armed forces is no where near as large as America's obviously.. but then again Canada only has 35 million people. We still kick America's ass every time the Snowbirds go up against the Blue Angles in competition though.. ;)

I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.

I'm so completely desensitized to the idea of "terrorism" anymore, that it honest-to-God doesn't phase me.

Sure. Go watch the Richard Pearle and Nick Berg decapitations and tell me that.

Don't confuse desensitized with "numb". When September 11th #2 happens people will remember what the stakes are. Then it's "game on".

I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.

I'm so completely desensitized to the idea of "terrorism" anymore, that it honest-to-God doesn't phase me.

Sure. Go watch the Richard Pearle and Nick Berg decapitations and tell me that.

Don't confuse desensitized with "numb". When September 11th #2 happens people will remember what the stakes are. Then it's "game on".
The more the western world kicks the Arab butt, the more likely there will be a Sept. 11 Part 2?

It kinda reminds me of a firebug, going around lighting fires everywhere.

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

How quickly we forget!
Remember the old "Axis of Evil"?
At least one of which really does have Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Sorry, silly me, they haven't any oil.

The more the western world kicks the Arab butt, the more likely there will be a Sept. 11 Part 2?

It kinda reminds me of a firebug, going around lighting fires everywhere.
Sure. We should have just sat on our hands. And so should have Britain when German bombers were redecorating London. And America after Pearl Harbor. After all, violence just begets more violence, right?

Kicking al-Qaeda and Taliban Arab butt in Afganistan... did that make September 11th #2 more or less likely? The 3rd Battalion, PPCLI, would be interested in your answer, I'm sure.

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

Ha, well lets not forget that 60% of all NHL players are Canadian.. Just because you buy a team, that doesn't mean you don't have a large count of Canadian players on your team.. The make up is 60% Canadian, I believe around 20 to 30% European and only actually between 10 and 15% of American players.. You may buy it.. but that doesn't mean you're the best at it.. ;)

The more the western world kicks the Arab butt, the more likely there will be a Sept. 11 Part 2?

It kinda reminds me of a firebug, going around lighting fires everywhere.
Sure. We should have just sat on our hands. And so should have Britain when German bombers were redecorating London. And America after Pearl Harbor. After all, violence just begets more violence, right?

Kicking al-Qaeda and Taliban Arab butt in Afganistan... did that make September 11th #2 more or less likely? The 3rd Battalion, PPCLI, would be interested in your answer, I'm sure.PPCLI? enlighten me...

How quickly we forget!
Remember the old "Axis of Evil"?
At least one of which really does have Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Sorry, silly me, they haven't any oil.
It isn't the oil Smeagol......the US wants to corner the world's supply of SAND. Sand is also useful in making glass, and God knows they need a lot of glass in Iraq to replace all those broken windows?

The US will NOT declare war on Saudi Arabia, unless they attack us. Saudi Arabia is a long-time ally to the United States. They have sold oil to us since World War 2. We won't go to war with Saudi Arabia. They are armed with US weaponry (Yes, folks, M16's, American fighter jets, Blackhawk helicopters, the like.) It's a very obscure nation -- everyone knows who they are, but yet we know little about them. We don't even know their birth rate -- we just measure it by the number of diapers that they buy. And that is not accurate. Saudi Arabia doesn't give us much info, and they don't want any agents from the US in their government, although we have an embassy in Riyadh. Anyway, don't expect a war with Saudi Arabia.

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

Ha, well lets not forget that 60% of all NHL players are Canadian.. Just because you buy a team, that doesn't mean you don't have a large count of Canadian players on your team.. The make up is 60% Canadian, I believe around 20 to 30% European and only actually between 10 and 15% of American players.. You may buy it.. but that doesn't mean you're the best at it.. ;)

Absolutely. America does not train enough engineers, scientists, but we know talent and hire the best.

Eh, Saudi Arabia, it's a ploy for attention, I do believe. So, what if there's terrorist attacks there? They've helped funded them. Serves 'em right!

Well if the al-Saud regime falls to Islamic extremists, then not only would it likely deal a hammer-blow to the world economy, you would also be left with the terrifying prospect of a state with the wealth and resources of Saudi Arabia coupled with a burgeoning hostility towards the west that could manifest itself in all sorts of ways including state sponsored terrorism.

A little extreme perhaps - especially since the regime doesn't look in any real trouble just yet, but I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.
You use "regime" so negatively. Would you call Bush's administration "the Bush regime?"

The more the western world kicks the Arab butt, the more likely there will be a Sept. 11 Part 2?

It kinda reminds me of a firebug, going around lighting fires everywhere.
Sure. We should have just sat on our hands. And so should have Britain when German bombers were redecorating London. And America after Pearl Harbor. After all, violence just begets more violence, right?

Kicking al-Qaeda and Taliban Arab butt in Afganistan... did that make September 11th #2 more or less likely? The 3rd Battalion, PPCLI, would be interested in your answer, I'm sure.
I was referring to Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 911? NADA

Iraq just inflames the terrorist cause especially with the prisoner abuse. Do you honestly believe that Iraq was a threat to the US?

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

Ha, well lets not forget that 60% of all NHL players are Canadian.. Just because you buy a team, that doesn't mean you don't have a large count of Canadian players on your team.. The make up is 60% Canadian, I believe around 20 to 30% European and only actually between 10 and 15% of American players.. You may buy it.. but that doesn't mean you're the best at it.. ;)

Absolutely. America does not train enough engineers, scientists, but we know talent and hire the best.

Hey, if we can get some one else to pay to keep Canada's game alive.. I actually have no problem with that ..

A Canadian infantry unit that participated in Operation Enduring Freedom alongside the American 101st.

http://www.ironsides.8m.com/cic.html

Between 4 February and 30 July 2002, the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group (3 PPCLI BG) spearheaded Operation APOLLO, Canada’s contribution to the international war against terrorism in Afghanistan. This was the first deployment into combat operations by a Canadian Army unit against a declared enemy in five decades. The Battle Group was deployed to a heavily mined and war-torn country for operations against an elusive enemy under the most extreme weather conditions. The Battle Group flawlessly conducted three air-assault operations into harsh, mountainous terrain, contributed successfully to a fourth, and set the standard within their parent United States Army Brigade, Task Force RAKKASAN, for security operations on the Kandahar Airfield.

Also notable for their snipers, who made two record range kills (2,430 metres) and killed about 20 "militants".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713521/posts

Of course according to CanuckHeaven they were just provoking the "Arab World" into more terrorist attacks like September 11th.

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

Ha, well lets not forget that 60% of all NHL players are Canadian.. Just because you buy a team, that doesn't mean you don't have a large count of Canadian players on your team.. The make up is 60% Canadian, I believe around 20 to 30% European and only actually between 10 and 15% of American players.. You may buy it.. but that doesn't mean you're the best at it.. ;)

Absolutely. America does not train enough engineers, scientists, but we know talent and hire the best.

Hey, if we can get some one else to pay to keep Canada's game alive.. I actually have no problem with that ..

I also.

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

Ha, well lets not forget that 60% of all NHL players are Canadian.. Just because you buy a team, that doesn't mean you don't have a large count of Canadian players on your team.. The make up is 60% Canadian, I believe around 20 to 30% European and only actually between 10 and 15% of American players.. You may buy it.. but that doesn't mean you're the best at it.. ;)

Absolutely. America does not train enough engineers, scientists, but we know talent and hire the best.

Hey, if we can get some one else to pay to keep Canada's game alive.. I actually have no problem with that ..
You mean something like when Toronto won back to back World Series in 92 and 93? We kinda hired those guys eh?

The more the western world kicks the Arab butt, the more likely there will be a Sept. 11 Part 2?

It kinda reminds me of a firebug, going around lighting fires everywhere.
Sure. We should have just sat on our hands. And so should have Britain when German bombers were redecorating London. And America after Pearl Harbor. After all, violence just begets more violence, right?

Kicking al-Qaeda and Taliban Arab butt in Afganistan... did that make September 11th #2 more or less likely? The 3rd Battalion, PPCLI, would be interested in your answer, I'm sure.
I was referring to Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 911? NADA

Iraq just inflames the terrorist cause especially with the prisoner abuse. Do you honestly believe that Iraq was a threat to the US?
Of course not. Even if they did have WMDs, they wouldn't launch one at the US or Israel. Their SCUDs have the capability of carrying a chemilcal/biological warhead, but it still doesn't have the range to hit the US, and Saddam Hussein's government didn't have the money to buy ICBM targeting technology. Anyway, this is an illegal war. Much like the German invasion of Poland.

We're trying to have a nice political discussion. Not a stupid "OMG US > CANADA" argument.

A Canadian infantry unit that participated in Operation Enduring Freedom alongside the American 101st.

http://www.ironsides.8m.com/cic.html

Between 4 February and 30 July 2002, the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group (3 PPCLI BG) spearheaded Operation APOLLO, Canada’s contribution to the international war against terrorism in Afghanistan. This was the first deployment into combat operations by a Canadian Army unit against a declared enemy in five decades. The Battle Group was deployed to a heavily mined and war-torn country for operations against an elusive enemy under the most extreme weather conditions. The Battle Group flawlessly conducted three air-assault operations into harsh, mountainous terrain, contributed successfully to a fourth, and set the standard within their parent United States Army Brigade, Task Force RAKKASAN, for security operations on the Kandahar Airfield.

Also notable for their snipers, who made two record range kills (2,430 metres) and killed about 20 "militants".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713521/posts

Of course according to CanuckHeaven they were just provoking the "Arab World" into more terrorist attacks like September 11th.
Sir you are taking liberties with my posts. I did NOT say that Afghanistan was wrong. I agreed with that, as did most of the world. I do have a severe problem believing that Iraq could do any harm to the US, nor that they were planning to. It is a Bush plot period, end of story.

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

Ha, well lets not forget that 60% of all NHL players are Canadian.. Just because you buy a team, that doesn't mean you don't have a large count of Canadian players on your team.. The make up is 60% Canadian, I believe around 20 to 30% European and only actually between 10 and 15% of American players.. You may buy it.. but that doesn't mean you're the best at it.. ;)

Absolutely. America does not train enough engineers, scientists, but we know talent and hire the best.

Hey, if we can get some one else to pay to keep Canada's game alive.. I actually have no problem with that ..
You mean something like when Toronto won back to back World Series in 92 and 93? We kinda hired those guys eh?

Totally.. don't forget , a lot of American teams are old Canadian teams (NHL) that when they got bought out, their name was simply changed to reflect whichever state the person who bought them want them to represent.. look at the Quebec Nordics, didn't they become Dallas or some thing?

The more the western world kicks the Arab butt, the more likely there will be a Sept. 11 Part 2?

It kinda reminds me of a firebug, going around lighting fires everywhere.
Sure. We should have just sat on our hands. And so should have Britain when German bombers were redecorating London. And America after Pearl Harbor. After all, violence just begets more violence, right?

Kicking al-Qaeda and Taliban Arab butt in Afganistan... did that make September 11th #2 more or less likely? The 3rd Battalion, PPCLI, would be interested in your answer, I'm sure.
I was referring to Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 911? NADA

Iraq just inflames the terrorist cause especially with the prisoner abuse. Do you honestly believe that Iraq was a threat to the US?
Of course not. Even if they did have WMDs, they wouldn't launch one at the US or Israel. Their SCUDs have the capability of carrying a chemilcal/biological warhead, but it still doesn't have the range to hit the US, and Saddam Hussein's government didn't have the money to buy ICBM targeting technology. Anyway, this is an illegal war. Much like the German invasion of Poland.
Saddam has been minding his own business since the Gulf War. The last thing he wanted to do was get the US dropping bombs on Baghdad again.

The same way your NHL teams always kick the US's NHL teams ass?

Ha, well lets not forget that 60% of all NHL players are Canadian.. Just because you buy a team, that doesn't mean you don't have a large count of Canadian players on your team.. The make up is 60% Canadian, I believe around 20 to 30% European and only actually between 10 and 15% of American players.. You may buy it.. but that doesn't mean you're the best at it.. ;)

Absolutely. America does not train enough engineers, scientists, but we know talent and hire the best.

Hey, if we can get some one else to pay to keep Canada's game alive.. I actually have no problem with that ..
You mean something like when Toronto won back to back World Series in 92 and 93? We kinda hired those guys eh?

Totally.. don't forget , a lot of American teams are old Canadian teams (NHL) that when they got bought out, their name was simply changed to reflect whichever state the person who bought them want them to represent.. look at the Quebec Nordics, didn't they become Dallas or some thing?
Colorado Avalanche

I was referring to Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 911? NADA

Iraq just inflames the terrorist cause especially with the prisoner abuse. Do you honestly believe that Iraq was a threat to the US?

The Taliban wasn't a threat to the US. Neither was Iraq in 1991. Neither was Serbia in 1999. Italy wasn't a threat to Canada in WW2. But those darned PPCLI and Seaforth Highlanders of Canada went up the boot kicking their asses, despite inflaming the fascist cause!

Iraq supported terrorism. $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

I was referring to Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 911? NADA

Iraq just inflames the terrorist cause especially with the prisoner abuse. Do you honestly believe that Iraq was a threat to the US?

Iraq supported terrorism. $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Ah, one problem with your argument though.. Palestinian suicide bombers, don't involve themselves with International terrorism.. Arab countries supporting the Palestine cause is no different then America supporting the Israeli cause, both Palestine and Israel are guilty of war crimes.. so, this is a rather moot argument..

Saddam has been minding his own business since the Gulf War. The last thing he wanted to do was get the US dropping bombs on Baghdad again.
If by "minding his own business" you mean murdering Shiite and Kurd rebels, then yes, he was minding his own business.

Totally.. don't forget , a lot of American teams are old Canadian teams (NHL) that when they got bought out, their name was simply changed to reflect whichever state the person who bought them want them to represent.. look at the Quebec Nordics, didn't they become Dallas or some thing?
The Nordics became the Colorado Avalanche. They won the SC the year after they moved.

Dallas moved from Minnesota (South Canada), and the Jets moved to Phoenix. Thats all i can think of off the top of my head.

I was referring to Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 911? NADA

Iraq just inflames the terrorist cause especially with the prisoner abuse. Do you honestly believe that Iraq was a threat to the US?

The Taliban wasn't a threat to the US. Neither was Iraq in 1991. Neither was Serbia in 1999. Italy wasn't a threat to Canada in WW2. But those darned PPCLI and Seaforth Highlanders of Canada went up the boot kicking their asses, despite inflaming the fascist cause!

Iraq supported terrorism. $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
The Taliban was a threat to the US because they wouldn't give up Al-Queda.

Iraq was not a threat to the US in 1991.

Italy was part of the original Axis of Evil in WW 2 and yes were a threat to the world.

Serbia was a NATO exercise in preventing genocide.

Totally.. don't forget , a lot of American teams are old Canadian teams (NHL) that when they got bought out, their name was simply changed to reflect whichever state the person who bought them want them to represent.. look at the Quebec Nordics, didn't they become Dallas or some thing?
The Nordics became the Colorado Avalanche. They won the SC the year after they moved.

Dallas moved from Minnesota (South Canada), and the Jets moved to Phoenix. Thats all i can think of off the top of my head.

Yeah, that sounds about right.. thanks NA :)

but we gave you the Flames, who were originally from Atlanta.

Canada is next!!!

We need to do a pre-emptive strike before they ice skate and ski across the boarder!


:D
I can only pray...

Honestly, Syria looks like the next big target, unless the Iranians put down the dissent brewing there. Then we'll have to go in and help the people get that revolution started.

Ah, one problem with your argument though.. Palestinian suicide bombers, don't involve themselves with International terrorism.. Arab countries supporting the Palestine cause is no different then America supporting the Israeli cause, both Palestine and Israel are guilty of war crimes.. so, this is a rather moot argument..

Oh. I didn't realize it was called the "War on International Terrorism." Your premise of moral equivalency between Palestine and Israel is disgusting, but common. The same morality of claiming that a day of S&M in Abu Ghraib is equal to decades of Soviet gulags. I wonder how Solzhenitsyn feels about that?

Ah, one problem with your argument though.. Palestinian suicide bombers, don't involve themselves with International terrorism.. Arab countries supporting the Palestine cause is no different then America supporting the Israeli cause, both Palestine and Israel are guilty of war crimes.. so, this is a rather moot argument..

Oh. I didn't realize it was called the "War on International Terrorism." Your premise of moral equivalency between Palestine and Israel is disgusting, but common. The same morality of claiming that a day of S&M in Abu Ghraib is equal to decades of Soviet gulags. I wonder how Solzhenitsyn feels about that?

Well to go after a civil matter such as Israel/Palestine.. is some what counter-productive to any type of peace process.. historically US Presidents have tried to help the peace process, since Bush has given Sharon the green light to do as he pleases.. (which has included war crimes) they are both as bad as each other.. so to say Palestinians are terrorists.. you must then also accept the fact that so are the Israeli's.. it's a slippery slope.. one I don't think American really should go down. Just because one side has better weapons then the other and uses tanks and missiles instead of human bombs.. doesn't really make a difference. It's a civil matter.. It's no threat to the world. Really, if you say Arab countries can't support Palestine.. then America is funding terrorism on the Israeli side.. some what of a double standard indeed.

Well to go after a civil matter such as Israel/Palestine.. is some what counter-productive to any type of peace process.. historically US Presidents have tried to help the peace process, since Bush has given Sharon the green light to do as he pleases.. (which has included war crimes) they are both as bad as each other.. so to say Palestinians are terrorists.. you must then also accept the fact that so are the Israeli's.. it's a slippery slope.. one I don't think American really should go down. Just because one side has better weapons then the other and uses tanks and missiles instead of human bombs.. doesn't really make a difference. It's a civil matter.. It's no threat to the world. Really, if you say Arab countries can't support Palestine.. then America is funding terrorism on the Israeli side.. some what of a double standard indeed.
First, the Arab countries don't support Palestine, they just hate Israel. That's why Kuwait ethnically cleansed Palestinians in 1991, and why Jordan and Lebanon keep them in crappy refugee camps instead of letting them naturalize.

Second: Israel =NOT Palestine

Both Germany and Britain were committing "war crimes" in 1939-41, including the open bombing of cities. Was the United States wrong to support Britain when it was "just as bad" as Germany?

Well to go after a civil matter such as Israel/Palestine.. is some what counter-productive to any type of peace process.. historically US Presidents have tried to help the peace process, since Bush has given Sharon the green light to do as he pleases.. (which has included war crimes) they are both as bad as each other.. so to say Palestinians are terrorists.. you must then also accept the fact that so are the Israeli's.. it's a slippery slope.. one I don't think American really should go down. Just because one side has better weapons then the other and uses tanks and missiles instead of human bombs.. doesn't really make a difference. It's a civil matter.. It's no threat to the world. Really, if you say Arab countries can't support Palestine.. then America is funding terrorism on the Israeli side.. some what of a double standard indeed.
First, the Arab countries don't support Palestine, they just hate Israel. That's why Kuwait ethnically cleansed Palestinians in 1991, and why Jordan and Lebanon keep them in crappy refugee camps instead of letting them naturalize.

Second: Israel =NOT Palestine

Both Germany and Britain were committing "war crimes" in 1939-41, including the open bombing of cities. Was the United States wrong to support Britain when it was "just as bad" as Germany?

Ok.. well I don't wish to upset you..

I see this is some what of an emotional football for you.

Let me just say, you would think one day we'd learn, no? :idea:

Ok.. well I don't wish to upset you..

I see this is some what of an emotional football for you.

What the hell is an emotional football? Does it cry when it gets fumbled?

Let me just say, you would think one day we'd learn, no? :idea:

What exactly are we supposed to learn? That "all societies are equal" and that we're the real bad guys? Sorry, I guess I'm just too stupid to learn that.

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

And we can call it fighting for peace, freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, we can all return to the 10th century, and have some lovely new crusades.


:roll:

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

And we can call it fighting for peace, freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, we can all return to the 10th century, and have some lovely new crusades.


:roll:

You can call it what you will...I call it victory over terrorism..and as a pagan and an Indian..the idea of calling it a Crusade isn't exactly thrilling me...what it is is called "war to the hilt"..something the early American colonists learned a lesson in when they went to war with us.

You obviously don't understand the nature of the Wahabbist threat..

Go to war with Saudi Arabia??

Not with Bush as president.
Or has anyone not learned of his connections with House Saud?

Not to mention that you dont go to war with OPEC.

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

um only problem there my friend is that you are 1000 odd years too early....

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

um only problem there my friend is that you are 1000 odd years too early....

Eh, Saudi Arabia, it's a ploy for attention, I do believe. So, what if there's terrorist attacks there? They've helped funded them. Serves 'em right!

Well if the al-Saud regime falls to Islamic extremists, then not only would it likely deal a hammer-blow to the world economy, you would also be left with the terrifying prospect of a state with the wealth and resources of Saudi Arabia coupled with a burgeoning hostility towards the west that could manifest itself in all sorts of ways including state sponsored terrorism.

A little extreme perhaps - especially since the regime doesn't look in any real trouble just yet, but I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.
You use "regime" so negatively. Would you call Bush's administration "the Bush regime?"

F :shock: K yes! In fact, I've heard it called WORSE.
Perhaps "Bush Crime Syndicate" is more appropriate.

Saudi Arabia next? I don't think so. For the following reasons:

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.

2. Saudi Arabia has recently promised to produce more oil for the West, the West currently relies on Saudi Arabia as a key player in OPEC.

3. Saudi Arabia holds Mecca and Medina (the holiest places in Islam), an attack on Saudi Arabia would be seen as an attack on Islam and the Islamic world.

I don't think Saudi Arabia will be next on the "axis of evil", America sees fit to change governments or regimes. Iraq had a terrorist regime-Saudi Arabia doesn't. Saudi Arabia may have individual fundamental terrorists but they are not supported by the government. Perhaps other nations like Iran will be on America's list. I doubt North Korea will be next as North Korea has admitted nuclear capability and America going to war with them could antagonise the threat.

Fine, so the US have connections to the Saud, and there's OPEC, etc. Here are my reasons to believe the US will invade Saudi Arabia.

1. To help prevent terrorism. Of course this is only a superficial reason.
2. The oil. There's not much the OPEC can do to inflict sanctions on the US, if the USAF have taken control of the oil fields (Which they will, on the pretense of protecting them from terrorist attacs).

But there is no way the US are going to just go out and declare a war. That is where the recent terrorist attacks come into play.
Let's say that Bush offers the help of his country to eradicate the terrorist threat in Saudi Arabia, and house Saud accepts. First a couple of Special Weapons And Tactics teams, but they can't do much. The Army sends in reinforcements, to protect the oil fields, and sit around them. Whoops. Instant domination of the oil supply. More bases in the country until it is practically occupied.
Okay, let's see what happens if the Saudi say they can handle the terrorists themselves. They have about half a year to do it, and if they do it well, no problem for now (I will explain later). If they don't... The US repeat their offer for "crisis help", the Saudi decline, and poof! President of the US of A: "We have reason to believe that the Saudi Arabian government is either incapable or unwilling to espond to the terrorist threat. Were it any other country that is in question, I would not consider attepting to influence that country's internal affairs. However, our intelligence operatives have intercepted terrorist transmissions indicating, that their next target will be an oil field. The results of such an attack would be devastating not only to Saudi Arabia, but the world economy. At their current rate of effectivity, the Saudi Arabian armed forces can not prevent that from happening. That is why we must take action, regardless of any boundaries or national borders, because Justice is Universal." And possibly, they will produce evidence that the Saudi Arabian Regime is in fact in league with the terrorists in order to raise the price of oil and roll in te dough. It doesn't matter if they are or not, CIA can do the same thing they pulled with the Iraqi Nucleo-Bio-Chemicals.
And if the Saudi regime does defeat the terrorists without help, they can always be branded as a dictatorship, and the World Police comes to the rescue with guns blazing.
I see only two ways of certainly preventing this. Either the Saud Arabians deal with their terrorist threat soon and without any civilian or enemy casualties (not counting prisoners who are given a fair trial), or USA doesn't attempt anything depicted above. I honestly can't tell which is more likely.

Saudi Arabia next? I don't think so. For the following reasons:

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.

2. Saudi Arabia has recently promised to produce more oil for the West, the West currently relies on Saudi Arabia as a key player in OPEC.

3. Saudi Arabia holds Mecca and Medina (the holiest places in Islam), an attack on Saudi Arabia would be seen as an attack on Islam and the Islamic world.

I don't think Saudi Arabia will be next on the "axis of evil", America sees fit to change governments or regimes. Iraq had a terrorist regime-Saudi Arabia doesn't. Saudi Arabia may have individual fundamental terrorists but they are not supported by the government. Perhaps other nations like Iran will be on America's list. I doubt North Korea will be next as North Korea has admitted nuclear capability and America going to war with them could antagonise the threat. DERN YOU prismos, i read through this whole useless thread just so *I* could say that and you went and said it for me

Saudi Arabia next? I don't think so. For the following reasons:

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.
Ummm you might want to rethink that one. The US has closed its' bases in Saudi and there has been upheaval ever since by the terrorists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?ex=1086494400&en=8d98ad0a8ee0bf48&ei=5070

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — For years, Osama bin Laden called for the violent overthrow of the Saudi royal family for allowing American bases in the holiest land of Islam.

But with American forces gone, the bombs continue to explode — signaling that the withdrawal did not address the deeper grievances among the hardened Saudi militants who were behind the car bomb attack in Riyadh late on Saturday. Those militants are now seeking to exploit the opposition that is growing within Saudi Arabia to a dynasty long immune to political challenge.

What seems ever more apparent in the attack in Riyadh that left at least 17 people dead and 122 wounded is that it is no longer Americans or even Westerners who are the targets of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, but rather stability itself in the oil-producing kingdom, as well as the writ of the House of Saud.

2. Saudi Arabia has recently promised to produce more oil for the West, the West currently relies on Saudi Arabia as a key player in OPEC.
Could it be that recent events in Saudi by the terrorists is to create a problem with the flow of oil?

3. Saudi Arabia holds Mecca and Medina (the holiest places in Islam), an attack on Saudi Arabia would be seen as an attack on Islam and the Islamic world.
US troops attacked some of the holiest shrines in Iraq, what makes you think that Saudi would be granted any special consideration?

I don't think Saudi Arabia will be next on the "axis of evil", America sees fit to change governments or regimes.
What if the terrorists expel the Royal Sauds?

Iraq had a terrorist regime-Saudi Arabia doesn't.
Bush would have everyone believe that Iraq had a terrorist regime but it is not true. BTW, where did the majority of terrorists come from that struck the WTC? Saudi Arabia of course. There are more anti-American terrorists in Saudi Arabia, then there is or was in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia may have individual fundamental terrorists but they are not supported by the government.
The terrorists would love to remove the government, which is a repressive regime by the way.

Perhaps other nations like Iran will be on America's list. I doubt North Korea will be next as North Korea has admitted nuclear capability and America going to war with them could antagonise the threat.
I think the US will do Saudi Arabia next, especially if the government is overthrown by terrorists.

Invading Saudi Arabia would destabilise the world's second-largest oil producer and wreck the world's economy. It would be contrary to US strategic interests. Iran or Syria would be silly ideas too, as it would destabilise the region further, and would make the Iraq war manpower requirements look trivial.

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.

Good relations?

Try," Business partners with the Bush Family."

Not kidding.

The Bin Laden family as well....

Fine, so the US have connections to the Saud, and there's OPEC, etc. Here are my reasons to believe the US will invade Saudi Arabia.

1. To help prevent terrorism. Of course this is only a superficial reason.
2. The oil. There's not much the OPEC can do to inflict sanctions on the US, if the USAF have taken control of the oil fields (Which they will, on the pretense of protecting them from terrorist attacs).

But there is no way the US are going to just go out and declare a war. That is where the recent terrorist attacks come into play.
Let's say that Bush offers the help of his country to eradicate the terrorist threat in Saudi Arabia, and house Saud accepts. First a couple of Special Weapons And Tactics teams, but they can't do much. The Army sends in reinforcements, to protect the oil fields, and sit around them. Whoops. Instant domination of the oil supply. More bases in the country until it is practically occupied.
Okay, let's see what happens if the Saudi say they can handle the terrorists themselves. They have about half a year to do it, and if they do it well, no problem for now (I will explain later). If they don't... The US repeat their offer for "crisis help", the Saudi decline, and poof! President of the US of A: "We have reason to believe that the Saudi Arabian government is either incapable or unwilling to espond to the terrorist threat. Were it any other country that is in question, I would not consider attepting to influence that country's internal affairs. However, our intelligence operatives have intercepted terrorist transmissions indicating, that their next target will be an oil field. The results of such an attack would be devastating not only to Saudi Arabia, but the world economy. At their current rate of effectivity, the Saudi Arabian armed forces can not prevent that from happening. That is why we must take action, regardless of any boundaries or national borders, because Justice is Universal." And possibly, they will produce evidence that the Saudi Arabian Regime is in fact in league with the terrorists in order to raise the price of oil and roll in te dough. It doesn't matter if they are or not, CIA can do the same thing they pulled with the Iraqi Nucleo-Bio-Chemicals.
And if the Saudi regime does defeat the terrorists without help, they can always be branded as a dictatorship, and the World Police comes to the rescue with guns blazing.
I see only two ways of certainly preventing this. Either the Saud Arabians deal with their terrorist threat soon and without any civilian or enemy casualties (not counting prisoners who are given a fair trial), or USA doesn't attempt anything depicted above. I honestly can't tell which is more likely.
You may have painted a very likely scenario. I think with the recent terrorist attacks in Saudi, the fact that many WTC terrorists came from Saudi, and the US penchant for expanding their empire could very well spell doom for Saudi.

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.

Good relations?

Try," Business partners with the Bush Family."

Not kidding.

The Bin Laden family as well....
Ummmm the US used to have good relations with Saddam at one time too. Lest we forget?

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.

Good relations?

Try," Business partners with the Bush Family."

Not kidding.

The Bin Laden family as well....
Ummmm the US used to have good relations with Saddam at one time too. Lest we forget?

Umm yeah...but they never stared a company together, and made tons of money...all the while supporting an evil regime that sponsors terrorism.

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.

Good relations?

Try," Business partners with the Bush Family."

Not kidding.

The Bin Laden family as well....
Ummmm the US used to have good relations with Saddam at one time too. Lest we forget?

Ummm...the Soviets used to be allied with U.S. at one time too. Lest we forget?
crap happens, move with it.

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.

Good relations?

Try," Business partners with the Bush Family."

Not kidding.

The Bin Laden family as well....
Ummmm the US used to have good relations with Saddam at one time too. Lest we forget?

Ummm...the Soviets used to be allied with U.S. at one time too. Lest we forget?
crap happens, move with it.

Yes, but John Kennedy never started a company with Nakita Kruschev, and made billions on the backs of dead Saudis

Go to war with Saudi Arabia??

Not with Bush as president.
Or has anyone not learned of his connections with House Saud?

Not to mention that you dont go to war with OPEC.

The connection being the same for every western civilization &/or emerging nation who needs oil to fuel their economies. The Saudi's control about one quarter of the worlds oil - so getting along is a must.

We will not go to war against Saudi Arabia but we may go to war in alliance with Saudi Arabia if it has to fight for it's survival against the Wahabbists.

The current rash of terrorist attacks is designed to topple the House of Saud. Then the Wahabbists (yanno, OBL & Co.?) want to have control of the oil and thus be in a position to set the agenda for the region.

A principle tenet of Wahabbism is the destruction of the western way of life and to force the west to abandon their form of government and institute Islamic States suitable to their vision.

Oil, despite all the noise about it, is not the "ends" but the "means". The end goal is world domination and the destruction of non Wahabbist states and cultures.

In Arabia they are not attacking OPEC, they are attempting a coup. We would not be attacking OPEC but, as ironic as it sounds, trying to preserve it - and our way of life.

SHL

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?

Why get a draft? The senators all talk about re-instating the draft because they know the truth and they see it as a way to get around it. The truth is that the defense budget is not big enough and congress refuses to raise the budget to a point where we could actually do what needs to be done. The Army, Air Force, and Navy are all having to turn back people interested in enlisting because they are not getting enough money from congress to do so. The reason they are not getting the money is because to much money is spent on the interest on the national debt, just the interest alone from this debt takes up 1/3 of our yearly budget, deficit spending is really starting to take its toll on us now. Perhaps we should stop spending at a deficit and go back to isolationism, see how that works for us, who knows, maybe we will have another world war, we will once again bail out Europe and come up smelling like roses and this whole cycle will repeat again and again and again, until aliens invade during WWXXIV and easily take advantage of our divisions and conquer the planet.

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.


Yeah, and how about them increasing the output of oil from their country by 23% under pressure from president Bush, theirby increasing the oil output by 8% world wide, sure Opec can complain about it, but that is all, we will always find a way around Opec, we did it a few years ago with Russia, now with Saudi Arabia, next with Venezuela, until we just tap the Alaskan Wilderness Refuge and get all the oil we need from there, enough to last the US an estimated 200 years.

And also, doesn't it seem odd, we have an excess amount of Corn Produced every year, thousands of farms go bankrupt every year, Ethanol is made from Corn, Ethanol is a more environmentally friendly from of fuel. Hey, wait a minute, if we added 10% ethanol to all fuel that would increase the demand on Corn, increase prices of Corn, farmers would be able to stay in business and the environment would be better off, not only that but we would be using 10% less gas, than means less oil and prices go down, seems like a good idea to me.

1. Saudi Arabia's royal family has good relations with America, there are already American military bases which can prove useful against other rogue states in the Middle East.


Yeah, and how about them increasing the output of oil from their country by 23% under pressure from president Bush, theirby increasing the oil output by 8% world wide, sure Opec can complain about it, but that is all, we will always find a way around Opec, we did it a few years ago with Russia, now with Saudi Arabia, next with Venezuela, until we just tap the Alaskan Wilderness Refuge and get all the oil we need from there, enough to last the US an estimated 200 years.

And also, doesn't it seem odd, we have an excess amount of Corn Produced every year, thousands of farms go bankrupt every year, Ethanol is made from Corn, Ethanol is a more environmentally friendly from of fuel. Hey, wait a minute, if we added 10% ethanol to all fuel that would increase the demand on Corn, increase prices of Corn, farmers would be able to stay in business and the environment would be better off, not only that but we would be using 10% less gas, than means less oil and prices go down, seems like a good idea to me.
Sounds corny to me. 8)

Eh, Saudi Arabia, it's a ploy for attention, I do believe. So, what if there's terrorist attacks there? They've helped funded them. Serves 'em right!

Well if the al-Saud regime falls to Islamic extremists, then not only would it likely deal a hammer-blow to the world economy, you would also be left with the terrifying prospect of a state with the wealth and resources of Saudi Arabia coupled with a burgeoning hostility towards the west that could manifest itself in all sorts of ways including state sponsored terrorism.

A little extreme perhaps - especially since the regime doesn't look in any real trouble just yet, but I would get fairly concerned if the frequency or scale of the attacks increases.
You use "regime" so negatively. Would you call Bush's administration "the Bush regime?"

No, I would refer to it as "The Bush utopia"

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

And we can call it fighting for peace, freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, we can all return to the 10th century, and have some lovely new crusades.


:roll:

You can call it what you will...I call it victory over terrorism..and as a pagan and an Indian..the idea of calling it a Crusade isn't exactly thrilling me...what it is is called "war to the hilt"..something the early American colonists learned a lesson in when they went to war with us.

You obviously don't understand the nature of the Wahabbist threat..

I am frankly amazed that you appear to have learnt little from your own people's history.

Was a time when "the only good Indian was a dead Indian"....now you are proposing much the same approach to Arabs.

There obviously are extremists in the Islamic (not just Arabic) world. An over-reaction to them, and a failure to address some of the underlying causes of their radicalism will only serve to play into their hands.

All terrorist/guerilla type campaigns deliberately seek an over-reaction, so as to increase their appeal to the masses.

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

And we can call it fighting for peace, freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, we can all return to the 10th century, and have some lovely new crusades.


:roll:

You can call it what you will...I call it victory over terrorism..and as a pagan and an Indian..the idea of calling it a Crusade isn't exactly thrilling me...what it is is called "war to the hilt"..something the early American colonists learned a lesson in when they went to war with us.

You obviously don't understand the nature of the Wahabbist threat..

I am frankly amazed that you appear to have learnt little from your own people's history.

Was a time when "the only good Indian was a dead Indian"....now you are proposing much the same approach to Arabs.

There obviously are extremists in the Islamic (not just Arabic) world. An over-reaction to them, and a failure to address some of the underlying causes of their radicalism will only serve to play into their hands.

All terrorist/guerilla type campaigns deliberately seek an over-reaction, so as to increase their appeal to the masses.

Big friggin difference Smeagol between my people's situation and arab terrorists....please don't even go there as a comparison model...I have not advocated the death of all muslims..but the death of Wahabbist extremist muslims who will never seek compromise with the West, due to their agenda...that of total capitulation of Western Civilization to their brand of Islam and the eventual enforcement of Islamic fundamentalist states in the West following their brand of Sharia Law.

Now...how does one..."understand and compromise" with such a belief Smeagol?

Iran, then Syria, insha'Allah.

Save Saudi Arabia for last. Like how in Command and Conquer you don't take out the NOD homebase until the very end.
Without bringing back the draft, the US just doesn't have enough manpower available. The US is going to get bogged down in the sand?


Oh the hell with it...let's just bomb them all back to the 7th Century,which apparently the Wahabbists are comfortable with...Sharia Law, extreme fundamentalist....they want the golden age of the Caliphate back, I say let them have it..camels and all... :twisted:

We'll issue visas for any moderate arab that realizes Wahabbism is a door for terrorism and then assume anyone not willingt to live must therefore be a wahabbist or enjoy living in the 7th century...lol

And we can call it fighting for peace, freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, we can all return to the 10th century, and have some lovely new crusades.


:roll:

You can call it what you will...I call it victory over terrorism..and as a pagan and an Indian..the idea of calling it a Crusade isn't exactly thrilling me...what it is is called "war to the hilt"..something the early American colonists learned a lesson in when they went to war with us.

You obviously don't understand the nature of the Wahabbist threat..

I am frankly amazed that you appear to have learnt little from your own people's history.

Was a time when "the only good Indian was a dead Indian"....now you are proposing much the same approach to Arabs.

There obviously are extremists in the Islamic (not just Arabic) world. An over-reaction to them, and a failure to address some of the underlying causes of their radicalism will only serve to play into their hands.

All terrorist/guerilla type campaigns deliberately seek an over-reaction, so as to increase their appeal to the masses.

Big friggin difference Smeagol between my people's situation and arab terrorists....please don't even go there as a comparison model...I have not advocated the death of all muslims..but the death of Wahabbist extremist muslims who will never seek compromise with the West, due to their agenda...that of total capitulation of Western Civilization to their brand of Islam and the eventual enforcement of Islamic fundamentalist states in the West following their brand of Sharia Law.

Now...how does one..."understand and compromise" with such a belief Smeagol?

Back to the old deliberate misquoting tactic I see. Kindly point out where I used the phrase "understand and compromise".

I spoke of an over-reaction, and a failure to address the underlying causes of radicalism. The over-reaction is IMHO apparent in the very title of the thread. It is necessary to remember who it is you are fighting against - its Al Qaeda remember - the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has seemingly done little to hurt them, in fact many observers consider that their ranks have been increased as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

And the underlying causes have not been addressed at all - particularly the Palestinian issue.

Quite a difference between what I said and what you "quoted".

If you wish to engage in a debate, kindly address what has been written, not what you would wish to have been written.

There obviously are extremists in the Islamic (not just Arabic) world. An over-reaction to them, and a failure to address some of the underlying causes of their radicalism will only serve to play into their hands.

All terrorist/guerilla type campaigns deliberately seek an over-reaction, so as to increase their appeal to the masses.

I spoke of an over-reaction, and a failure to address the underlying causes of radicalism. The over-reaction is IMHO apparent in the very title of the thread.
Perhaps you do not know why I started this thread. Read on…..

Have you considered the possibility that the US is also thriving on terrorist actions and using them as an excuse to expand the US Empire? I am starting to have second thoughts as to why the US attacked Afghanistan. Obviously the primary reason was to route out Al Qaeda, or so it would seem. The secondary reason could be the decision to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan, or is this the primary reason?

At any rate, go to Google and do a search for: US building pipeline in afghanistan

I did a little research and came up with some interesting web sites:

A TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE AFGHANISTAN

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

My Government Went to Afghanistan And All I Got Was This Stupid Pipeline

http://citypaper.net/pipeline/

I am not sure how this relates, but it seems that Bush interests are all over the place and threw this in for interest:
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm


I know this reeks of conspiracy theory, but after the US attacked Iraq over less than substantial reasons, I saw an emerging pattern. The US seeks control over the Middle East’s oil, the life blood of the American economy and big business? US bases in Saudi Arabia have closed down, and terrorist activity has increased, with the intent of the overthrow of the Royal Sauds. Is this not playing into the hands of the US strategy, assuming there is one?

If the Saud’s are overthrown by terrorists, wouldn’t this be perfect timing for the US to invade Saudi Arabia? Hence my thread.

Perhaps my brain is working overtime and I need to get a new hobby?

Canuk, I think you might just be grabbing at straws with this one. The biggest argument against all this being that this administration, which has proved themselves to be inept beyond imagining, would have to mastermind this and I just can't see that happening. They're too stupid.

It's like that movie a couple of years ago, Devil's Advocate. I had no trouble believing Al Pacino was the Devil, but Keanu Reeves as a lawyer...?

Back to the old deliberate misquoting tactic I see. Kindly point out where I used the phrase "understand and compromise".

I spoke of an over-reaction, and a failure to address the underlying causes of radicalism. The over-reaction is IMHO apparent in the very title of the thread. It is necessary to remember who it is you are fighting against - its Al Qaeda remember - the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has seemingly done little to hurt them, in fact many observers consider that their ranks have been increased as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

And the underlying causes have not been addressed at all - particularly the Palestinian issue.

Quite a difference between what I said and what you "quoted".

If you wish to engage in a debate, kindly address what has been written, not what you would wish to have been written.[/quote]

You took three word out of an entire posts and suggested I'm deliberately misquoting you?...I put those words into quotation marks to emphasize what I believe your philosophy to be regarding the terrorists.

Just as many observers point to the lack of any 9/11 attacks other then Madrid which was 3 yrs after that day to indicate that Al-Queda is on the run...and as we dry up their funds from so called "Islamic charities" we'll further constrict their means to conduct operations..hundreds have been killed with over a 1/3 of their leadership killed on captured.

You fail to realize that there can be no compromise with a group like the Wahabbists..they are not looking to compromise..for them it's Islam or nothing..their goals included the reintroduction of Sharia as the governing law in muslim countries and the capitulation of the West to Islam. A modern day Islamic crusade with a different name of jihad. The wahabbist grew out of more then just the Palestinian issue..one can not co-exist with them unless you surrender to them and their agenda. I asked you how you compromise with an entity such as they?

Canuk, I think you might just be grabbing at straws with this one. The biggest argument against all this being that this administration, which has proved themselves to be inept beyond imagining, would have to mastermind this and I just can't see that happening. They're too stupid.

It's like that movie a couple of years ago, Devil's Advocate. I had no trouble believing Al Pacino was the Devil, but Keanu Reeves as a lawyer...?
Perhaps you are right, but at this point in time, more and more intricate stuff keeps turning up. It is like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and dammit it seems that some of these pieces are sliding into a very much larger picture.

Ok back to normal now I think. Let's just hope the terrorists don't overthrow the Saud Regime.

I have not advocated the death of all muslims..but the death of Wahabbist extremist muslims who will never seek compromise with the West, due to their agenda...that of total capitulation of Western Civilization to their brand of Islam and the eventual enforcement of Islamic fundamentalist states in the West following their brand of Sharia Law.

Now...how does one..."understand and compromise" with such a belief Smeagol?
Firstly, that's still many millions of people, who you imply must die because of their beliefs. Secondly, one alternative to war, when compromise is difficult, is to avoid crossing paths in the first place. Back in the old days, it was accepted that if understanding was difficult and combat undesirable, the next best thing is to avoid each other. On today's world stage, this would for example mean far less involvement in Middle East affairs.

The wahabbist grew out of more then just the Palestinian issue..one can not co-exist with them unless you surrender to them and their agenda. I asked you how you compromise with an entity such as they?
Why not allow them to do as they please on their territory? Why can't they be allowed to pursue their agenda within their own countries? They may want dictatorship, but why must the US force other types of dictatorial governments upon them? What is wrong with being able to choose your own dictatorship?

Your belief that no use of reason is possible, and that they must all die, are totalitarian, and mirror the anti-semitism that they themselves show. Do you even realise that all you are doing is echoing their propaganda, with a few words replaced? This hardly shows you in a good light.

Back to the old deliberate misquoting tactic I see. Kindly point out where I used the phrase "understand and compromise"....

I spoke of an over-reaction, and a failure to address the underlying causes of radicalism. The over-reaction is IMHO apparent in the very title of the thread. It is necessary to remember who it is you are fighting against - its Al Qaeda remember - the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has seemingly done little to hurt them, in fact many observers consider that their ranks have been increased as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

And the underlying causes have not been addressed at all - particularly the Palestinian issue.

Quite a difference between what I said and what you "quoted".

If you wish to engage in a debate, kindly address what has been written, not what you would wish to have been written.

You took three word out of an entire posts and suggested I'm deliberately misquoting you?...I put those words into quotation marks to emphasize what I believe your philosophy to be regarding the terrorists.....

You fail to realize that there can be no compromise with a group like the Wahabbists.. I asked you how you compromise with an entity such as they?[/quote]

How many times do I have to repeat this? I am not, and have not, suggested any form of "compromise" with terrorists.

If you wish to "emphasize what I believe your philosophy to be regarding the terrorists", you could at least read what I have written.

What I have said, and believe, is that the US response to terrorism, particularly the invasion of Iraq, has proved of benefit to the terrorists.

Its about Al Qaeda remember? You remember, Osama bin Laden and his group, last reported in hiding in either Afghanistan or the more tribal areas of Pakistan.

The US has taken their eye "off the ball" in pursuing Saddam and Iraq, and have merely increased Islamic suspicions of their motives.

Why do you think that there was so little reaction to the invasion of Afghanistan compared to the invasion of Iraq?

And, most importantly, it has to be noted that Al Qaeda is not, and does not have to be, backed by a state. The terrorists you seek are driven by radical religious beliefs, and are not acting under the guidance of state sponsorship.

The invasion of Iraq has tied up troops that could be used to hunt down Al Qaeda, lost the support of the international community, and increased the appeal of radicalism to the Islamic and Arabic peoples.

A more ham-fisted approach is difficult to imagine.

Kindly have the courtesey to read what I write, and respond to that, instead of making your own attempts at "emphasising" what you "believe" my philosophy is.

As long as this admoinistration lasts we will not invade Saudi Arabia. The Bushes and the Saudi princes are much too chummy.

As for Canada, the Conservatives could get a working plurality government if they can work out a coalition with minor parties; they will rebuild the military.

Canuk, I think you might just be grabbing at straws with this one. The biggest argument against all this being that this administration, which has proved themselves to be inept beyond imagining, would have to mastermind this and I just can't see that happening. They're too stupid.

It's like that movie a couple of years ago, Devil's Advocate. I had no trouble believing Al Pacino was the Devil, but Keanu Reeves as a lawyer...?

Yanno, we discuss things in human terms. The true powers that be plan geostratigies where humans are just numbers on a balance sheet. A capital investment that must be made to achieve the desired the bottom line.

While we focus on management the real International Board of Directors remains obscured. The administration players are mere puppets with the real masters behind the curtain making them appear to be too incompetent to hatch such a scheme. So we dismiss the scheme and they are then free to carry it out.

Skull & Bones is a junior partner in THE NEW WORLD ORDER. (http://www.floodlight.org/theory/sub1.html) Richard Nixon's handler, Henry Kissenger said, “By controlling energy we control nations, by controlling food we control individuals.” Essentially Luciferan it is attempting to hasten Armageddon. It does this with the very cunning tactic of feigning Christianity. This modus operandi is a signature mark of the organization that created the common market as a step to the EU which is an integral part of of their ultimate goal, World Domination.

I am dilligently researching this on a diet of coffee and pure cane sugar to ensure maximum efficiency. If by any chance you don't see me post more on this it means that I have been replicated by a drone clone.

Be Well, Be Strong
SHL

I have not advocated the death of all muslims..but the death of Wahabbist extremist muslims who will never seek compromise with the West, due to their agenda...that of total capitulation of Western Civilization to their brand of Islam and the eventual enforcement of Islamic fundamentalist states in the West following their brand of Sharia Law.

Now...how does one..."understand and compromise" with such a belief Smeagol?
Firstly, that's still many millions of people, who you imply must die because of their beliefs. Secondly, one alternative to war, when compromise is difficult, is to avoid crossing paths in the first place. Back in the old days, it was accepted that if understanding was difficult and combat undesirable, the next best thing is to avoid each other. On today's world stage, this would for example mean far less involvement in Middle East affairs.

The wahabbist grew out of more then just the Palestinian issue..one can not co-exist with them unless you surrender to them and their agenda. I asked you how you compromise with an entity such as they?

Why not allow them to do as they please on their territory? Why can't they be allowed to pursue their agenda within their own countries? They may want dictatorship, but why must the US force other types of dictatorial governments upon them? What is wrong with being able to choose your own dictatorship?

Your belief that no use of reason is possible, and that they must all die, are totalitarian, and mirror the anti-semitism that they themselves show. Do you even realise that all you are doing is echoing their propaganda, with a few words replaced? This hardly shows you in a good light.

TG, are you suggesting we capitulate to Wahabbist demands? I don't have a firm census on those who hold that the western nations must be replaced with a theocracy acceptable to them: but even if several million is a fair number I have to ask you, so what? If you wish to allow them self determination within their own borders, perhaps (South Africa?) but the point made is that they are intent on a more international agenda that hinges on the death and/or subjugation of hundreds of millions.

Avoidance may work well enough for an individual in an unpleasant social matter but it is not applicable in world economy and politics. In the imperfect real world nations deal from their own self interest. We dance an endless dance of measure, counter-measure to the tune of survival.

SHL

To say of Wahhabism that "they are intent on a more international agenda that hinges on the death and/or subjugation of hundreds of millions" is to say the same thing about the Jews, Chinese, whoever, take your pick. There are nasty and unpleasant people in any culture, but to attribute their actions to the culture as a whole and argue for its destruction, that annoys me greatly. Yes, I believe they should be left alone to pursue self-determination. No, I do not think they will come to slit our throats at night, any more that black people did the same after being freed from slavery and apartheid.

To say of Wahhabism that "they are intent on a more international agenda that hinges on the death and/or subjugation of hundreds of millions" is to say the same thing about the Jews, Chinese, whoever, take your pick. There are nasty and unpleasant people in any culture, but to attribute their actions to the culture as a whole and argue for its destruction, that annoys me greatly. Yes, I believe they should be left alone to pursue self-determination. No, I do not think they will come to slit our throats at night, any more that black people did the same after being freed from slavery and apartheid.

:shock: WE'RE NOT NASTY!

I have not advocated the death of all muslims..

For the 5 Million or so that live in the Sunni triangle, yes you did.

I have not advocated the death of all muslims..

For the 5 Million or so that live in the Sunni triangle, yes you did.

A quote clearly taken out of context as it was uttered immediately after watching 4 Americans were brutally slaughtered, burned, and mutilated by a crowd of Iraqis...of course I'm going to be upset and speak out passionately.....and even as you say...5 million isn't all muslims now is it?..you've just extrapolated from 5 million to all muslims..poor attempt to make my comments indicative of a desire to commit genocide.

So it was Reactionary?

So it was Reactionary?

It was an honest reaction...I daresay if they had been of another nation then some other ns poster here would have become just as incenesed...and I think it's naive of Tactical Grace to assume that the wahabbist would not have come to slit our throats...we never assumed they'd strike at one of our largest cities with commercial airplanes either.

The Wahabbists are a threat...and need to be dealt with.

And very reactionary at that.

"THey" heh.

If you lived in China You'd be branded as a reactionary Intellectual and Be ded by now :D

And very reactionary at that.

"THey" heh.

If you lived in China You'd be branded as a reactionary Intellectual and Be ded by now :D

Good thing I'm not Chinese...why the very thought of spicy szechuan hurts my stomach.

To say of Wahhabism that "they are intent on a more international agenda that hinges on the death and/or subjugation of hundreds of millions" is to say the same thing about the Jews, Chinese, whoever, take your pick. There are nasty and unpleasant people in any culture, but to attribute their actions to the culture as a whole and argue for its destruction, that annoys me greatly. Yes, I believe they should be left alone to pursue self-determination. No, I do not think they will come to slit our throats at night, any more that black people did the same after being freed from slavery and apartheid.

I am truly surprised at your broad brush response. You are generally more precise. But your point is taken regardless. Can we agree on this? Those whose stated aim is the destruction of western civilization and surplanting it with their view of proper governance, regardless of their sub group in a given population, have declared themselves mortal enemies and as such should be resisted, by violence if necessary. If their sub group is one dedicated to such then that sub group is a mortal enemy and should be treated as such. This includes active combatants and those who provide comfort and aid to them.

A slightly finer brush. Being that I know a broad spectrum of people from all over the world I am not deluded into a "bomb them all" mentality. That said, I do believe self defense is not merely a right but an obligation.

SHL

I have not advocated the death of all muslims..

For the 5 Million or so that live in the Sunni triangle, yes you did.

A quote clearly taken out of context as it was uttered immediately after watching 4 Americans were brutally slaughtered, burned, and mutilated by a crowd of Iraqis...of course I'm going to be upset and speak out passionately.....and even as you say...5 million isn't all muslims now is it?..you've just extrapolated from 5 million to all muslims..poor attempt to make my comments indicative of a desire to commit genocide.
I do believe that you make it quite clear that you are no fan of the "Sunni" Muslims, so I really don't believe I took your comment out of context. Whether it is reactionary or not, you still own what you wrote.