"Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' "

"Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Vendaval -> "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 6:47:23 AM)
"Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " POSTED: 12:15 a.m. EDT, March 30, 2007 " It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result -- but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite. The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party. The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq's Shiite leadership, blaming it for fueling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region. Abdullah's remarks came at a time when the kingdom is taking a more public role in efforts to defuse crises threatening to engulf the Middle East. Saudi Arabia sponsored a reconciliation accord between Palestinian factions, has engaged Iran about its nuclear program, and has tried to settle simmering tensions in Lebanon. And the kingdom has been talking to various factions in Iraq. Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to U.S. interests. "The king's remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false," said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. "In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause." Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to follow Saudi Arabia's lead in considering the presence of U.S. troops an illegal occupation. "If Saudi Arabia didn't blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?" he asked. " http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/29/saudi.criticism.ap/index.html

toservez -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 10:09:40 AM)
This is an example of the real cost and failure of the Iraq war and the possible long term problems that King George might have caused this country to have to endure in the future. The world is no longer afraid or concerned about being on our good side. The world knows we are maxed out in Iraq, will be for awhile and then probably will have to deal with Iran so they can speak out against us without fear and help themselves out within their own country and their surrounding neighbors. Teddy Roosevelt line “speak softly and carry a big stick” has been replaced by King George and his Iraq mess “speak loudly and carry a small stick”.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 10:50:51 AM)
There certainly is a large disconect between the actions of the king and his recent public statement. If Saudi Arabia wanted the US out of Iraq, they could force it tomorow. Or last week, ect. This just sounds like he was blowing smoke up the "arab streets" ass again for his own benefit, and to improve his image as he pushes plans that we support.

SimplyMichael -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 7:37:07 PM)
Since the Saudi's are funding the Sunni forces in Iraq and thus Al Queda, this is more than just words. They have to walk a fine line though since we would of course be much better off invading Saudi Arabia than Iran. Lucky for all of our enemies, as someone brighter than I quiped, Bush talks loudly and carries a little stick!

luckydog1 -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 8:50:51 PM)
"Since the Saudi's are funding the Sunni forces in Iraq and thus Al Queda, this is more than just words. " Now Crappy, get a grip please. It is nonsense to say that because most al queda are Sunni, all Sunnis activists/millitants are Al Queda. Please tell me you are brighter than this. Also you keep making the logical error of thinking that because some saudi citizens support al Queda (and want to destroy the kingdom) the Saudis support Al Queda. You keep repeating this on different threads. Saudi Arabia is not our enemy, Al Queda is. They are not interchangable terms, as you like to use them.

Sinergy -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 9:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Now Crappy, get a grip please. It is nonsense to say that because most al queda are Sunni, all Sunnis activists/millitants are Al Queda. Please tell me you are brighter than this. What I find weird about this is that Al Qaeda is made of Shiites. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

SimplyMichael -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 10:16:55 PM)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235407,00.html http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/171893

luckydog1 -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 10:39:55 PM)
Nope sinergy you have that absolutly backwards

luckydog1 -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 10:45:02 PM)
Crappy everyone of the sites you listed said that Private citizens in Arabia, NOT THE GOV is funding these groups. And 3 of them referenced that most of the money was coming from people giving to help the orphans and humanitarian efforts. The same networks Democrats oppose shutting down in the USA. But this common knowledge, it is how these groups have operated for years.

SimplyMichael -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 10:51:38 PM)
What is it about right wingers and how they fixate on some tiny angle as if it forgives the big picture. All citizens of Saudi Arabia are refered to as Saudi's.. which is how I have refered to them. Since Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy, what its citizens do reflects on the government and so yes, I think the dividing line is rather grey. Especially when it invovles vast amounts of money or lots of your citizens planning, staffing, and funding a major attack on your ally. Especially when you saw the immediate need to fortify your entire oil infrastructure with doomseday radioactive diry bombs to prevent invasion.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 11:15:23 PM)
Crappy says," Since Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy, what its citizens do reflects on the government and so yes, I think the dividing line is rather grey. " How the heck does that work? Crappy, I get it you hate Saudi Arabia, and want to wage war on thier people, causing them to set off doomsday bombs. I have no idea why though, but you are in alliance with Al Queda on this issue. Dirty bombs? How would that stave off invasion? the oil is deep under ground. 8 feet of concrete over the operating sites, and its not even an issue. and the one book that alleges thier existance that says they were put in 15 years ago so you claiming an "immediate need to fortify your entire oil infrastructure with doomseday radioactive diry bombs " is again just made up out of thin air. Lots?

SimplyMichael -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/30/2007 11:52:55 PM)
Dog, quote: Crappy says," Since Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy, what its citizens do reflects on the government and so yes, I think the dividing line is rather grey. " How the heck does that work? Sorry but if I have to explain something this simple, I am going to have to charge you tuition. quote: Crappy, I get it you hate Saudi Arabia, and want to wage war on thier people, causing them to set off doomsday bombs. I don't love or hate Saudi Arabi or any ME country and I certainly don't know of one I want to wage war on. I thought it might be fun to simply hang around and rebuild afghanistan but that was yesterdays country and oh so passe and so we invaded Iraq, a country that wasn't really doing all that much to help Al Queda, and now some want to wage war on Iran, another country that has little to do with Al Queda. Oddly enough, almost every country Bush has as an ally DID or DOES have something to do with Al Queda and I just sort of hope that by pointing out it we won't be 1 for 3 for picking real bad guys to invade.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/31/2007 2:04:58 AM)
Actually crappy, you keep talking about countries, but you never cited one that did help Al Queda. People in them did, mostly unwittingly according to the articles you gave me. You declare Saudi Arabia to be our enemy correct? Even though Al Queda hates the Suadi Monarchy more than they hate America. And the Royal familly has given us an amazing amount of help. I just don't get why.

Sinergy -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/31/2007 7:03:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Nope sinergy you have that absolutly backwards I read an interview with a Yemen fighter for Al Qaeda in Rolling Stone where he talks about being a Shiite. But in reading about Al Qaeda http://www.adl.org/terrorism/profiles/al_qaeda.asp It seems that their organization is predominantly a fundamentalist branch of Sunni, with some Kurdish and Shiite branches. In other words, the religion is not as important to Al Qaeda as the destruction of the apostate western leaders and their replacement by followers of Islam. In any event, I stand corrected. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/31/2007 7:05:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 And the Royal familly has given us an amazing amount of help. I just don't get why. [sarcasm] I certainly felt their love when the Saudis dramatically cut oil production following both Desert Shield/Storm and Monkeyboy's invasion of Iraq. [/sarcasm] On a related note, they own such a huge chunk of the United States economy that I am sure at least one of them realizes if we go, so do they. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/31/2007 7:11:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Nope sinergy you have that absolutly backwards I read an interview with a Yemen fighter for Al Qaeda in Rolling Stone where he talks about being a Shiite. But in reading about Al Qaeda http://www.adl.org/terrorism/profiles/al_qaeda.asp It seems that their organization is predominantly a fundamentalist branch of Sunni, with some Kurdish and Shiite branches. In other words, the religion is not as important to Al Qaeda as the destruction of the apostate western leaders and their replacement by followers of Islam. In any event, I stand corrected. Sinergy I will point out an elephant in the room, since nobody else will. It should be apparent that the inimical struggle that divides the factions in islam can be overcome by a diet at Wurms and they will confederate to fight a greater enemy that we have so luxuriously provided-----let them go back to playing stick and ball with one anothers heads-----flush this fuckin' toilet and guard our own doors.

Sinergy -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/31/2007 7:33:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Nope sinergy you have that absolutly backwards I read an interview with a Yemen fighter for Al Qaeda in Rolling Stone where he talks about being a Shiite. But in reading about Al Qaeda http://www.adl.org/terrorism/profiles/al_qaeda.asp It seems that their organization is predominantly a fundamentalist branch of Sunni, with some Kurdish and Shiite branches. In other words, the religion is not as important to Al Qaeda as the destruction of the apostate western leaders and their replacement by followers of Islam. In any event, I stand corrected. Sinergy I will point out an elephant in the room, since nobody else will. It should be apparent that the inimical struggle that divides the factions in islam can be overcome by a diet at Wurms and they will confederate to fight a greater enemy that we have so luxuriously provided-----let them go back to playing stick and ball with one anothers heads-----flush this fuckin' toilet and guard our own doors. I have been pointing that out for months, mnottertail. As T.E. Lawrence pointed out "As long as the tribes of Arabia refuse to come together, they will remain a little people, a silly people, murderous and barbarous and cruel." We change our society so we no longer use crude oil and they can go rot until they fertilize the crescent and develop a civilization. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: "Saudis on U.S. in Iraq: 'illegitimate foreign occupation' " (3/31/2007 7:50:28 AM)
That is correct, Sinergy, you have. I overstated the case on the front end. What saddens me is that many will say it negates everthing that is. Ron

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125