Question:
> There are muslims world wide who regard al-Qaida as the only opposition to > American "occupation" in the ME-puppet governments- and Israeli occupation > of palestine.
True. Bloody fools, if you ask me. Puppet governments? Here’s a list of Muslim-majority countries whose governments the US *doesn’t* like: Talibannie Afghanistan Libya Syria & Lebanon Iran Yemen Somalia Mauretania Chad Northen Nigeria’ Sudan Arafat’s Palestine Saddam’s Iraq And here’s a list of the most illiberal or dysfunctional governments of Mulsim majority countries: Talibannie Afghanistan Saudi Arabia Libya Syria & Lebanon Iran Yemen Somalia Mauretania Chad Northern Nigeria Sudan Arafat’s Palestine Saddam’s Iraq Algeria Do we detect a pattern there? Or, to put it another way, the Muslim-majority countries the US *does* like are: Turkey Morocco Jordan Kuwait Qatar Pakistan (up to a point) Bangladesh Egypt And the most liberal Muslim-majority countries – the ones which allow the greatest freedom of speech, prevent the worst excesses of the fanatics, allow TV stations like al-Jazeera to flourish etc. etc. – are: Turkey Morocco Jordan Kuwait Qatar Pakistan (up to a point) Bangladesh Well whaddya know? So the golden rule seems to be, if your country is friendly with the USA, or democratic countries in general, chances are you’ll have a fair amount of freedom and justice. If not, then not. Exceptions are: Egypt (not liberal enough – but under extreme duress from the Muslim League), Algeria (likewise, in spades, vis-a-vis Salafi terrorists. And the French are involved anyway) and Saudi Arabia. Ah, yes, Saudi Arabia. Something will have to be done about that … As for Israel: I have lost count of the number of abusive emails and accusations of anti-semitism I’ve had for saying that the treatment of the Palestinians by the Likud is no better than the treatment of Jews in Germany in the early years of Nazi rule. I think a crime is being perpetrated on them. I also think that a minority of Palestinians are conniving in the perpetration of that crime, and that the majority of Israelis (who did not vote for the Likud) should not be found responsible. In short, both sides are as bad, or good, as each other. You’re right: the Americans should get off their collective duff and sort it out. …and when they do, here’s a guarantee: it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to the Islamists (al-Qaeda and friends). They mean for *all* the Jews, pagans, infidels and ‘hypocrites’ in the ‘Islamic world’ (which, in case you haven’t realised, includes Spain and Portugal, the Balkans, India, Burma and western China, at a minimum) to be driven into the sea, if not ‘converted’, and those who immorally support their ideology without posessing the courage to take up arms will soon find some other imagined injury or insult to hate us for. The creation of a democratic Palestine is a necessary start to reducing the mistrust, if not anger, in the middle east. But it won’t stop the terrorism – if anything, it will increase it. > Yup, around the time it started making serious concessions to the > Wahabis – started allowing them to send out their ‘religious police’ > volunteers, and infect the Saudi school system with their ideology. > Supposition?
No. > Saudi Arabia is getting poorer. There can’t be a direct connection > between that and the rise of Islamism, but there is an idirect one > IMO. > Saudi is getting poorer because half its population is immigrant workers and > there has been little investment in projects for locals.
Absolutely. Of course. But where has the money gone? Not all of it has been sent to Osama’s cave as protection money (so to speak) – a great deal has been blown in the casinos and brothels of Mayfair and Monte Carlo – but one hell of a lot of it has. Without Saudi petrodollars al-Qaeda wouldn’t have had half the money it had to pay for 9/11, Bali etc., is my guess, and Osama would have been just another penniless Yemeni, or at best a normal middle class foreign language student in London or New York. > Local reformers have been pushing for democracy for years, ignored by the US > and now as anti-americanism gathers the reformers are being replaced by > extremists.
Oh, tosh. Look, you can certainly blame the US for pandering to the regime in Saudi – and not just the US; the UK and Europe, India and the Arab League have all done the same – but the quashing of political reform was all al-Fahd’s own work. They cut a deal with their own internal Wahabi opposition: we’ll let you run your own ‘moral police force’ and your own madrassas – and we’ll even let you export them abroad (like to Pakistan, where in an interview last week one of the new al-Qaeda-supporting regional governors admitted that their sole purpose was to ‘brainwash’ boys of 10-12 [i.e. so that anything they subsequently learn will not erase their desire to be part of the 'cause']) – just so long as you don’t incite the populace to rise up and drag us from our jewelled bedchambers and hang us from the local minarets (or whatever). Why do you think they banned bin Laden? Their days are numbered anyway, but it’s far too late to think about democracy in Saudi Arabia – without the Saud dynasty there *is* no Saudi Arabia. It’s the sheikhs or the imams; nothing inbetween. And that is *not* the fault of the west. That has been the condition in that part of the world for 1,400 years. [snip] > > > We’ve just seen how, at the first sign of perceived American weakness > > > (the withdrawl of its troops from Arabia) al-Qaeda strikes (killing > > > mostly Muslims of course; nobody ever accused them of intelligence). > > You been in Arabia or still share cropping? > Not Saudi, but Egypt, and what the hell is that supposed to mean? > Your reference to intelligence was a joke?
No. al-Qaeda (which is really a catch-all name for any Islamist terrorist group) state that they are fighting the infidel on behalf of Muslims everywhere. Yet they invariably end up killing more Muslims than any infidel has, other than in war (and even then those wars invariably end up saving the lives of other Muslims). And when they’re not killing Muslims they’re killing black Africans in their hundreds or Balinese Hindus. They are contemptuopus f human life, in other words. This is not intelligent. Tactically, they are clever – they have switched their fight to the ‘borders’ of the Islamic world, to places like Morocco or Kenya or Bali, where contact with the infidel is greatest and Islam is set to spread – but strategically, they are playing a very dangerous game. These attacks will make non-Muslims in those areas detest ordinary Muslims, who do not deserve to be detested, and by devestating the tourist industries of these countries will make them more dependent on western aid. And my guess (and this was confirmed by a Saudi journalist on TV the other day) is that the Saudi bomb was a response to the US troops withdrawl, which they must have perceived as weakness. Actually, it was a sign of strength (the US are strong enough in the region now not to need the Saudis) and will probably frighten the Saudi regime into helping the US even more. But … we’ll see. One thing’s for sure – they know they can’t come into the open. > It was a primary demand of bin Laden, troops are leaving, what has he to
Yes (although he killed mostly Muslims). But he’s *always* wanted westerners ‘out’. He chose that time to bomb Riyadh because he thought the US had ‘given up’ on the Saudis. The reason the US left Saudi is because they’ve got better accomodation lined up in Iraq. If the US appear to go cold on the Saudi regime it may shock them into offering more help (like banking details – who’s been sending money to whom, and where). That bombing has just given them another little shock in the same direction (and the Moroccan government too). al-Qaeda are very good on the big symbolic gestures, but lousy on the geopolitics. They think the west hasn’t the heart to fight; will give up and go home. They could be right of course – it really depends on American public opinion – but I don’t believe there is any lack of will to fight them. More like a lack of interest, as long as they are ‘only’ killing the poor. And if the US *does* give up on the Saudi regime – thus winning the support of liberals everywhere, naturally – and al-Qaeda stage a revolt and win the oil fields, and Kuwait and the little Sheikhdoms fall into a mass paroxysm of panic – why, what a *wonderful* opportunity for the Americans to roll in the tanks again, and blow their utterly illegal, non-UN recognised ‘government’ all to bits! They couldn’t plan it better. And then watch the Arabian peninsula get carved up into manageable bite-sized chunks (just like the British never quite got round to doing). Surely al-Qaeda aren’t as dumb as all THAT? > Iraq has been devastated, first by sanctions and now by war,
Whoa, WHOA! Time out! Surely something is missing there. Iraq has been devastated by … who? … There’s a name missing there. … Go on, it’ll come to you. Begins with ‘S’ ….. Sad… Sadd … Go on, see if you can finish it … Sadda … m. Saddam! That’s it! Well done. Yes, Iraq has been devestated by SADDAM. > Iraquis will be > thinking about Iraq not al-Qaida`s war.No Saddam,no Americans, hopefully, > they will rebuild.
Sorry, nice of you to jump on board the Saddam Out bandwagon, but the ‘no Saddam’ part of that equation is mutually exclusive of the ‘no American’ part. You can have one, but not both. > If America tries to influence Iraqui developement, come > back al-Quaida.
…followed by BANG BANG goodbye al-Qaeda, thanks for raising your heads above the parapet. Hopefully. This is a … read more »
Response:
> > We’ve known for years now that Saudi Arabia is in effect the > > fundraiser for Islamist terrorism. > Evidence or you got it from Fox? > There is some evidence, yes (I don’t watch Fox). al-Qaeda must be > getting its money from somewhere, and it definitely isn’t me.
There are muslims world wide who regard al-Qaida as the only opposition to American "occupation" in the ME-puppet governments- and Israeli occupation of palestine. > We also know that preciosu litle of > > its oil wealth filters down to the ordinary Saudi people, > Had the highest standard of living in the middle East up to 1990. > Yup, around the time it started making serious concessions to the > Wahabis – started allowing them to send out their ‘religious police’ > volunteers, and infect the Saudi school system with their ideology.
Supposition? > Saudi Arabia is getting poorer. There can’t be a direct connection > between that and the rise of Islamism, but there is an idirect one > IMO.
Saudi is getting poorer because half its population is immigrant workers and there has been little investment in projects for locals. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saudi regime is busy filtering off > petrodollars in the expectation that any time soon they are going to > have to make a dash for the border with a thousand screaming fanatics > on their tail. This tends to be what happens when you appease the bad > guys.
Local reformers have been pushing for democracy for years, ignored by the US and now as anti-americanism gathers the reformers are being replaced by extremists. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> and we can > > be pretty certain that had Iraq developed its oil reserves (with > > French and Russian help) even less of te wealtha ccrued would have > > filtered down to the Iraqi people. > You are not sure about anything, you are developing the plot as you go along > True. I’m just thinking aloud. And spelling really badly. > > Instead, a new source of funding for terrorism would be established, > > making the chances for all-out war between democracy and theocracy > > even more likely. > Saddam wanted a secular empire, he the proud leader, > True. > Bin laden wanted a unified islamic Middle East, > True – though it seems he’s probably still alive. > There was no connection > No direct connection, no. But those with memories which go back > further than Bush’s election will know that once upon a time the > al-Fahds wanted to be the proud leaders of the Arab people. They > started to appease the fanatics and now they are suffering bomb > attacks while their country’s economy goes tits up and they are forced > to rely on infidel armies to keep themselves safe. > Saddam was already cutting deals with al-Ansar, the home-grown version > of al-Qaeda, and Hamas (and really, there is no difference – none of > these groups are formal organisations). Whose to say he wouldn’t have > tried to tame the same big beast that did for the Sheikhs? You? Is > that what you’re saying? > Just good yankee propaganda. > Uh-huh. Whatever. > I try really hard to restrict my attacks on an ideology, which I call > ‘Islamism’ (extremist political Islam), which I perceive to be an > extremely dangerous totalitarian creed with which we are at war. I > don’t mean to or want to attack Muslims, or Arabs, both of which on a > personal level I generally like. By the same token, there is a lot > about the present American administration I detest. I certainly don’t > trust them, even if I think, in their attitudes towards Islamist > terrorism, they are correct. However much I dislike them I would not > want to expand my attack to the American people, who on a personal > level I generally like. > If you want to, that’s up to you. But if you simultaneously seek to > deplore nationalist hatred or racism when it is directed against Arabs > (if you do, I don’t know) while encouraging it when it is directed > against Americans, you are a hypocrite and a liar. > > With Iraq’s oil in the hands of a western-friendly, probably > > democratic, government, we should at least have avoided that fate. Now > > perhaps we should look to the world’s greatest supply of oil, in > > Saudi. > You are going to lose it when your favourite arse licker the Saudi family > are ousted. > I hope they are ousted. They are corrupt and weak and undemocratic. I > don’t wish them any personal harm, but I think their time will soon be > up in Saudi. > > We’ve just seen how, at the first sign of perceived American weakness > > (the withdrawl of its troops from Arabia) al-Qaeda strikes (killing > > mostly Muslims of course; nobody ever accused them of intelligence). > You been in Arabia or still share cropping? > Not Saudi, but Egypt, and what the hell is that supposed to mean?
Your reference to intelligence was a joke? I > was quoting a Saudi journalist (that the Riyadh bombing was a response > to the American troops withdrawl, because al-Qaeda perceive it as a > sign of weakness). You think you know better?
It was a primary demand of bin Laden, troops are leaving, what has he to > Does it occur to you, it is not your oil. > Yes. Does it occur to you that it is not the property of the ruling > regime in Saudi or the former ruling regime in Iraq? In which case, > who is to ensure that the wealth it accrues is spent on the nation as > a whole, and not on the enrichment of the regime in power – or for the > regime-in-exile in the Hindu Kush? Not the Americans? OK, I’ll go with > that – i don’t entirely trust them either – then who?
Iraq has been devastated, first by sanctions and now by war, Iraquis will be thinking about Iraq not al-Qaida`s war.No Saddam,no Americans, hopefully, they will rebuild. If America tries to influence Iraqui developement, come back al-Quaida. The extremists are a minority, they become a smaller minority if you separate them from the majority, America cannot understand that, continues to push and threaten, continue to support Israel and garner support for the likes of al-Qaida. And its good morning from me. Alan UK
Response:
> > We’ve known for years now that Saudi Arabia is in effect the > fundraiser for Islamist terrorism. > Evidence or you got it from Fox?
There is some evidence, yes (I don’t watch Fox). al-Qaeda must be getting its money from somewhere, and it definitely isn’t me. > We also know that preciosu litle of > its oil wealth filters down to the ordinary Saudi people, > Had the highest standard of living in the middle East up to 1990.
Yup, around the time it started making serious concessions to the Wahabis – started allowing them to send out their ‘religious police’ volunteers, and infect the Saudi school system with their ideology. Saudi Arabia is getting poorer. There can’t be a direct connection between that and the rise of Islamism, but there is an idirect one IMO. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saudi regime is busy filtering off petrodollars in the expectation that any time soon they are going to have to make a dash for the border with a thousand screaming fanatics on their tail. This tends to be what happens when you appease the bad guys. > and we can > be pretty certain that had Iraq developed its oil reserves (with > French and Russian help) even less of te wealtha ccrued would have > filtered down to the Iraqi people. > You are not sure about anything, you are developing the plot as you go along
True. I’m just thinking aloud. And spelling really badly. > Instead, a new source of funding for terrorism would be established, > making the chances for all-out war between democracy and theocracy > even more likely. > Saddam wanted a secular empire, he the proud leader,
True. > Bin laden wanted a unified islamic Middle East,
True – though it seems he’s probably still alive. > There was no connection
No direct connection, no. But those with memories which go back further than Bush’s election will know that once upon a time the al-Fahds wanted to be the proud leaders of the Arab people. They started to appease the fanatics and now they are suffering bomb attacks while their country’s economy goes tits up and they are forced to rely on infidel armies to keep themselves safe. Saddam was already cutting deals with al-Ansar, the home-grown version of al-Qaeda, and Hamas (and really, there is no difference – none of these groups are formal organisations). Whose to say he wouldn’t have tried to tame the same big beast that did for the Sheikhs? You? Is that what you’re saying? > Just good yankee propaganda.
Uh-huh. Whatever. I try really hard to restrict my attacks on an ideology, which I call ‘Islamism’ (extremist political Islam), which I perceive to be an extremely dangerous totalitarian creed with which we are at war. I don’t mean to or want to attack Muslims, or Arabs, both of which on a personal level I generally like. By the same token, there is a lot about the present American administration I detest. I certainly don’t trust them, even if I think, in their attitudes towards Islamist terrorism, they are correct. However much I dislike them I would not want to expand my attack to the American people, who on a personal level I generally like. If you want to, that’s up to you. But if you simultaneously seek to deplore nationalist hatred or racism when it is directed against Arabs (if you do, I don’t know) while encouraging it when it is directed against Americans, you are a hypocrite and a liar. > With Iraq’s oil in the hands of a western-friendly, probably > democratic, government, we should at least have avoided that fate. Now > perhaps we should look to the world’s greatest supply of oil, in > Saudi. > You are going to lose it when your favourite arse licker the Saudi family > are ousted.
I hope they are ousted. They are corrupt and weak and undemocratic. I don’t wish them any personal harm, but I think their time will soon be up in Saudi. > We’ve just seen how, at the first sign of perceived American weakness > (the withdrawl of its troops from Arabia) al-Qaeda strikes (killing > mostly Muslims of course; nobody ever accused them of intelligence). > You been in Arabia or still share cropping?
Not Saudi, but Egypt, and what the hell is that supposed to mean? I was quoting a Saudi journalist (that the Riyadh bombing was a response to the American troops withdrawl, because al-Qaeda perceive it as a sign of weakness). You think you know better? > Does it occur to you, it is not your oil.
Yes. Does it occur to you that it is not the property of the ruling regime in Saudi or the former ruling regime in Iraq? In which case, who is to ensure that the wealth it accrues is spent on the nation as a whole, and not on the enrichment of the regime in power – or for the regime-in-exile in the Hindu Kush? Not the Americans? OK, I’ll go with that – i don’t entirely trust them either – then who?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Does anyone know what proportion of Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth is spent > > on Islamic ‘charities’ close to al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups? > > We’ve known for years now that Saudi Arabia is in effect the > > fundraiser for Islamist terrorism. > Evidence or you got it from Fox? > There is ample evidence, reported by even left wing rags like the Guardian, > telling the story of SA’s involvement in developing fundamentalism outside > their borders. SA is one of the more fundamentalist countries in the
region. You are saying the statement is true, no evidence of . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Saddam wanted a secular empire, he the proud leader, > He wanted a little more than that. He was also interested in destroying > Israel. When things started to go bad for him after 91 he maintained his > popular base by appealing to Islamic sensibilities. He engaged a propoganda > campaign portraying him as a pious muslim. > Bin laden wanted a unified islamic Middle East, > There was no connection > Just good yankee propaganda. > The connection is the unification of Arabs into a greater empire. One for a > united Caliphate, the other for a greater socialist empire. I don’t really > know what the effective difference would have been. > > We must assume that if American troops are pulled out of any of the > > Gulf states, or Iraq, the same thing will happen there. If those > > troops ever go back in to Saudi Arabia, should it be to isolate its > > oil fields from the regime, so that the wealth they represent can be > > liberated from the terrorist fundraisers? > Does it occur to you, it is not your oil. > Well, we found it and pump it. It may not be ‘ours’, I don’t think anybody > really thinks it is, however it is nice to know that the wealth derived from > our technology and demand is not being used against us.
Response:
> Does anyone know what proportion of Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth is spent > on Islamic ‘charities’ close to al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups? > We’ve known for years now that Saudi Arabia is in effect the > fundraiser for Islamist terrorism. > Evidence or you got it from Fox?
There is ample evidence, reported by even left wing rags like the Guardian, telling the story of SA’s involvement in developing fundamentalism outside their borders. SA is one of the more fundamentalist countries in the region. > Saddam wanted a secular empire, he the proud leader,
He wanted a little more than that. He was also interested in destroying Israel. When things started to go bad for him after 91 he maintained his popular base by appealing to Islamic sensibilities. He engaged a propoganda campaign portraying him as a pious muslim. > Bin laden wanted a unified islamic Middle East, > There was no connection > Just good yankee propaganda.
The connection is the unification of Arabs into a greater empire. One for a united Caliphate, the other for a greater socialist empire. I don’t really know what the effective difference would have been. > We must assume that if American troops are pulled out of any of the > Gulf states, or Iraq, the same thing will happen there. If those > troops ever go back in to Saudi Arabia, should it be to isolate its > oil fields from the regime, so that the wealth they represent can be > liberated from the terrorist fundraisers? > Does it occur to you, it is not your oil.
Well, we found it and pump it. It may not be ‘ours’, I don’t think anybody really thinks it is, however it is nice to know that the wealth derived from our technology and demand is not being used against us.
Response:
> Does anyone know what proportion of Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth is spent > on Islamic ‘charities’ close to al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups? > We’ve known for years now that Saudi Arabia is in effect the > fundraiser for Islamist terrorism.
Evidence or you got it from Fox? We also know that preciosu litle of > its oil wealth filters down to the ordinary Saudi people,
Had the highest standard of living in the middle East up to 1990. and we can > be pretty certain that had Iraq developed its oil reserves (with > French and Russian help) even less of te wealtha ccrued would have > filtered down to the Iraqi people.
You are not sure about anything, you are developing the plot as you go along > Instead, a new source of funding for terrorism would be established, > making the chances for all-out war between democracy and theocracy > even more likely.
Saddam wanted a secular empire, he the proud leader, Bin laden wanted a unified islamic Middle East, There was no connection Just good yankee propaganda. > With Iraq’s oil in the hands of a western-friendly, probably > democratic, government, we should at least have avoided that fate. Now > perhaps we should look to the world’s greatest supply of oil, in > Saudi.
You are going to lose it when your favourite arse licker the Saudi family are ousted. > We’ve just seen how, at the first sign of perceived American weakness > (the withdrawl of its troops from Arabia) al-Qaeda strikes (killing > mostly Muslims of course; nobody ever accused them of intelligence).
You been in Arabia or still share cropping? > We must assume that if American troops are pulled out of any of the > Gulf states, or Iraq, the same thing will happen there. If those > troops ever go back in to Saudi Arabia, should it be to isolate its > oil fields from the regime, so that the wealth they represent can be > liberated from the terrorist fundraisers?
Does it occur to you, it is not your oil. > And what kind of guarantees should we have that none of the oil wealth > Iraq will create in years tocome finds its way to al-Qaeda coffers?
You have abviously swallowed al the crap the Bush Oil Co have fed you.
Response:
Does anyone know what proportion of Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth is spent on Islamic ‘charities’ close to al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups? We’ve known for years now that Saudi Arabia is in effect the fundraiser for Islamist terrorism. We also know that preciosu litle of its oil wealth filters down to the ordinary Saudi people, and we can be pretty certain that had Iraq developed its oil reserves (with French and Russian help) even less of te wealtha ccrued would have filtered down to the Iraqi people. Instead, a new source of funding for terrorism would be established, making the chances for all-out war between democracy and theocracy even more likely. With Iraq’s oil in the hands of a western-friendly, probably democratic, government, we should at least have avoided that fate. Now perhaps we should look to the world’s greatest supply of oil, in Saudi. We’ve just seen how, at the first sign of perceived American weakness (the withdrawl of its troops from Arabia) al-Qaeda strikes (killing mostly Muslims of course; nobody ever accused them of intelligence). We must assume that if American troops are pulled out of any of the Gulf states, or Iraq, the same thing will happen there. If those troops ever go back in to Saudi Arabia, should it be to isolate its oil fields from the regime, so that the wealth they represent can be liberated from the terrorist fundraisers? And what kind of guarantees should we have that none of the oil wealth Iraq will create in years tocome finds its way to al-Qaeda coffers?
Response:
ole? : :Hmmm… President Gore. Yee-ha! Robin doesn’t think Clinton will be impeached in the Senate — I wanna publish zines And rage against machines 