How long we going to take that chit from Saudi. I said screw Iraq may times. Saudi is where we should have went to start with. We know they had things to do with 9/11. Time for White House to wake up.
Saudi Bombing
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
This creates an interesting dillema I would think for the Right Wing Media. We have now wiped two countries off the map. Countless times we have been told by them Thank God we have a President who is not a pussy.
Okay here is the problem. This attack was not of the magnitude of 9-11. Nothing was. We had a president who reacted to those pre 9-11 attacks in a certain way. It will be interesting to see what the right wing crazies will be demanding of this President to do now in retaliation to this attack.
Okay here is the problem. This attack was not of the magnitude of 9-11. Nothing was. We had a president who reacted to those pre 9-11 attacks in a certain way. It will be interesting to see what the right wing crazies will be demanding of this President to do now in retaliation to this attack.
I sense a no-win situation djv & StevieD. I remember w/Clinton ppl said, (supporters), that it is best to have a person CinC who knows how to wheel & Deal- so we won't get taken advantage of, one who is aware of the ways of the world, etc. I'm not trying to bash at all cause there is a lot w/Bush, (The President heh, heh), that I don't like. Just wonderin what Bush could do that you would agree with? I don't have the answers or pretend to- just like to hear some good ideas. I am all for getting US weaned off of oil, but face it- Americans are spoiled and want low gas prices, IMO- even if it means the country of Iraqi-Halliburton. Plus if the stock market comes back whoever is 'IN' will reap the rewards- whether earned or not- Don't you agree? Always respect your opinions, just got me wonderin!
P.S.- And I never even brought up Clinton's BJ, although in all fairness my kinda guy would also have taken a m*ffdive :burnout
P.S.- And I never even brought up Clinton's BJ, although in all fairness my kinda guy would also have taken a m*ffdive :burnout
LOL Chan, at least we can agree on something!
But I certainly do not have the answers how to stop terrorism. I just didn't think bombing Iraq would solve anything. And in all fairness the jury is still out on that one even after this latest attack.
What I resented was the Thank God we have this President crap I kept hearing. I don't think he solved anything. And as I stated before no matter who was President was going to get the Taliban.
So know I wonder how This President will react to this bombing.
Keep our base in Saudi active? Maybe. Bin Laden wanted it gone so I don't know why we were leaving it in the first place.
But I certainly do not have the answers how to stop terrorism. I just didn't think bombing Iraq would solve anything. And in all fairness the jury is still out on that one even after this latest attack.
What I resented was the Thank God we have this President crap I kept hearing. I don't think he solved anything. And as I stated before no matter who was President was going to get the Taliban.
So know I wonder how This President will react to this bombing.
Keep our base in Saudi active? Maybe. Bin Laden wanted it gone so I don't know why we were leaving it in the first place.
I honest to god would have started with Saudi long time ago. I would have went to Wash DC and gave Bush a kiss. We new from the start all but one person with 9/11 was from Saudi. We new the money trail led through there.
We could have always did in Iraq anytime we wanted in 20 to 30 days. We new he had little or nothing left. We also new from 91 war they would surreder fast. Iraq had been sitting there doing same shit for 20 years. It was just a easier target.
Saudi would cause more problems do to there oil flow. But hey either get the real bastards or pass.
Afhganistan another mess brewing. We chased some bad guys out. But the old bad guys are comeing back in. Most do not like us either.
Saudi still has the money trail. sounds like there going to look harder. BS there all tied into the same family. Put some hurt on them and then we would get some place.
We could have always did in Iraq anytime we wanted in 20 to 30 days. We new he had little or nothing left. We also new from 91 war they would surreder fast. Iraq had been sitting there doing same shit for 20 years. It was just a easier target.
Saudi would cause more problems do to there oil flow. But hey either get the real bastards or pass.
Afhganistan another mess brewing. We chased some bad guys out. But the old bad guys are comeing back in. Most do not like us either.
Saudi still has the money trail. sounds like there going to look harder. BS there all tied into the same family. Put some hurt on them and then we would get some place.
We HAVE been working in Saudi. Actually a week ago we uncovered a terrorist plot and discovered Al Quaeda's intent to do something in Riyadh but they scattered before we could get them all.
Al Quaeda clearly intends to draw a rift between the Saudi government and the US government. Bush is trying to get the Saudi government to cooperate with us. Which I think he is doing a pretty good job of.
We go after a country because of its REGIME. Not the terrorists. Otherwise we would attack our own government lol.
Al Queada WANTS us to go after Saudi. We are trying to get the Saudi gov't to cooperate with us to go after these guys. Which they are showing to do now. They realize we are serious.
No need to go after their government now.
Al Quaeda clearly intends to draw a rift between the Saudi government and the US government. Bush is trying to get the Saudi government to cooperate with us. Which I think he is doing a pretty good job of.
We go after a country because of its REGIME. Not the terrorists. Otherwise we would attack our own government lol.
Al Queada WANTS us to go after Saudi. We are trying to get the Saudi gov't to cooperate with us to go after these guys. Which they are showing to do now. They realize we are serious.
No need to go after their government now.
djv said:
I agree DJV seemingly we should have gotten on the ball earlier. And if Saudi refused to cooperate they should have had consequences. But that is past and hopefully we go in there WITH them and extract these terrorists.
Hmmm. Fair enough, but seems like ppl would then be Protesting, staging Vomit-Ins, and so on about this tactic. Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't we be second guessed again? Maybe I am just out for revenge or maybe I don't want to feel helpless, but I am glad we did something- and i can appreciate your stance, StevieD, about 'now having a president that will do something.' It does make one seem more patriotic- which is not necessarily so. I wouldn't mind paying more@ the pump if we could develop alternative energy sources- but guess it'll never happen
Islamic terrorists, possibly Al Qaeda, attacked a civilian compound in Saudi Arabia late yesterday.
So, there?s your reminder. The war against Islamic terrorism is not over. I believe it?s only a matter of time before these Islamic fanatics launch an attack inside the United States. Remember ? ?terrorists? is only one-half of the description. They are ISLAMIC terrorists.
In the meantime, we continue to make the same mistakes in the U.S. that we?ve been making since 9/11. We send thousands of people into our airports to inconvenience travelers looking for weapons rather than terrorists. Ethnic profiling, arguably the most effective way to identify and stop terrorists, is outlawed. Our borders are still basically open. Containers get unloaded every single day in ports on all coasts without being opened and inspected.
We?re Muslims. We?re peaceful. Our?s is a religion of peace. If you don?t refer to us as peaceful, if you don?t acknowledge Islam as a religion of peace, we will kill you.
So, there?s your reminder. The war against Islamic terrorism is not over. I believe it?s only a matter of time before these Islamic fanatics launch an attack inside the United States. Remember ? ?terrorists? is only one-half of the description. They are ISLAMIC terrorists.
In the meantime, we continue to make the same mistakes in the U.S. that we?ve been making since 9/11. We send thousands of people into our airports to inconvenience travelers looking for weapons rather than terrorists. Ethnic profiling, arguably the most effective way to identify and stop terrorists, is outlawed. Our borders are still basically open. Containers get unloaded every single day in ports on all coasts without being opened and inspected.
We?re Muslims. We?re peaceful. Our?s is a religion of peace. If you don?t refer to us as peaceful, if you don?t acknowledge Islam as a religion of peace, we will kill you.
You make some good points Turf. It is not like they are going to hijack another airplane. The passengers would see to it they they didn't get very far. But they could put bombs anywhere. Meanwhile, we are wasting money looking for pocket knifes at airports.
i agree something smells in saudi arabia. last week the saudi military raided a place where these terrorists were staying, but they were already gone. somebody had to tip them off about the raid. today i heard that alot of the security guards at these compounds were unarmed. don't understand that!!
iraq was the right place to attack because saddam was funding terrorism & he allowed the terrorists to set up camp. i have posted, on this site, numerous articles by different reporters linking saddam & al qaeda. i guess if people have made up their mind that there is no direct connection, they won't believe anything that is written about a connection. even if you don't believe a direct connection, there are different degrees of separation between terrorists & rogue countries.
stevie,
i guess i am one of those who think that we are lucky to have this present administration at the helm. i don't think the dems can match the international experience of the bush team.
imo, that post 9/11 the american public do not trust any democrat as our president. even with the uncertanity of the economy, i think bush wins this next elction in a landslide. i also think that the republicans gain a wider edge in congress, & i think daschle has a chance of going down in his re-election bid.
iraq was the right place to attack because saddam was funding terrorism & he allowed the terrorists to set up camp. i have posted, on this site, numerous articles by different reporters linking saddam & al qaeda. i guess if people have made up their mind that there is no direct connection, they won't believe anything that is written about a connection. even if you don't believe a direct connection, there are different degrees of separation between terrorists & rogue countries.
stevie,
i guess i am one of those who think that we are lucky to have this present administration at the helm. i don't think the dems can match the international experience of the bush team.
imo, that post 9/11 the american public do not trust any democrat as our president. even with the uncertanity of the economy, i think bush wins this next elction in a landslide. i also think that the republicans gain a wider edge in congress, & i think daschle has a chance of going down in his re-election bid.
Ar- You may be right in the fact that Saddam funded terrorism but there are terrorist camps all over the mid-east. Alot of them are being found in Pakistan too.
I can't agree with you on the team that Bush assembled. It seems to me he put together a team of his fathers friends. The same guys who blew it in '91. In fact Rumsfeld, the humanitarian, was in Iraq the very day that Saddam used the Chemical Weapons on his own people. Rummy sent back a report to Regan that Saddam was a guy we should support. Chaney also has ties to Saddam, as CEO of Halliburtan he skirted US laws by doing business with Saddam and strengthening him, thru a foreign entity of the company. So don't be too impressed with Bush's team.
That is not to praise the dems for anything that they have done during this whole mess. Those dinks are too stupid to fight.
I can't agree with you on the team that Bush assembled. It seems to me he put together a team of his fathers friends. The same guys who blew it in '91. In fact Rumsfeld, the humanitarian, was in Iraq the very day that Saddam used the Chemical Weapons on his own people. Rummy sent back a report to Regan that Saddam was a guy we should support. Chaney also has ties to Saddam, as CEO of Halliburtan he skirted US laws by doing business with Saddam and strengthening him, thru a foreign entity of the company. So don't be too impressed with Bush's team.
That is not to praise the dems for anything that they have done during this whole mess. Those dinks are too stupid to fight.
Dam it men it's on every news channel in ever paper. We new this chit was about to happen. We warn the Saudis get more security in place. NOTHING DONE.
Now reports are Al Queda has infiltrated into much of Saudis military. Forsure has an in with Saudis government. Our military and state dept should just be going nuts on this. Mr Bush I hope does something soon. Talk with these ass holes goes know where. They should have been one of our first targets. The money trail just gettes deeper. They got tons of money.
Now the leading attacker of USS cole were told is from where. Saudi. Enough.
Now reports are Al Queda has infiltrated into much of Saudis military. Forsure has an in with Saudis government. Our military and state dept should just be going nuts on this. Mr Bush I hope does something soon. Talk with these ass holes goes know where. They should have been one of our first targets. The money trail just gettes deeper. They got tons of money.
Now the leading attacker of USS cole were told is from where. Saudi. Enough.
So .. now we learn that the U.S. Government asked the government of Saudi Arabia for additional security at the compound that was attacked earlier this week by terrorists. The Saudi government did not cooperate .. .they are reported to have said that security was sufficient and that there were no terrorists operating inside Saudi Arabia.
Do you know that after the terrorist attack the Saudi ambassador actually said something to the effect that America was all talk, and the Saudis are action?
Yeah ? action. Action like those of those 15 Saudi Arabians who were part of the September 11th hijacking crew.
Some friends.
Do you know that after the terrorist attack the Saudi ambassador actually said something to the effect that America was all talk, and the Saudis are action?
Yeah ? action. Action like those of those 15 Saudi Arabians who were part of the September 11th hijacking crew.
Some friends.
here is an article that i read that explains the problems in saudi arabia. if saudi arabia is serious about fighting this war they have to eliminate the madrassa's(sp?) & get rid of the alqaeda sympathizers in the gov't. & in it's population.
Saudis 'supportive'
of bin Laden
Dissident says al-Qaida can survive any kingdom crackdown
? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Osama bin Laden has broad support in his native Saudi Arabia that will enable his al-Qaida network to survive any crackdown, according to a leading Saudi dissident.
In Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida has a "supportive, sheltering environment where hostility to the United States is immense," said Saad al-Fagih, head of the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, in an interview with Reuters.
Al-Qaida is the chief suspect in Monday's suicide bomb attacks against U.S. targets in Riyadh that killed 34 people.
Fagih, a 44-year-old British-trained surgeon, said he sees signs bin Laden is prepared to attack the royal family and other Saudis regarded as protectors of U.S. interests.
"Previously he had banned attacks on the Saudi establishment because perceptions in society are against targeting any Muslim even if he is corrupt, immoral or a member of the royal family," he told Reuters.
Fagih rejected as naive the idea that the Saudi royal family was "soft" on Islamist militants, but he asserted the aging monarchy is out of touch with its people.
The royals' obsession with secrecy makes them inclined to conceal problems from the outside world, he said.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., al-Qaida has suffered losses in personnel and logistics, Fatigh noted, but bin Laden's followers have made compensatory gains in Saudi Arabia, where they are welcomed.
According to Fagih, resentment against the U.S. rose in Saudi Arabia with the capture of Baghdad by coalition troops, regarded as the greatest humiliation Muslims had suffered since Israel seized East Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
Dealing with terrorists
In the wake of Monday's bombings, the Saudi royals are faced with U.S. criticism of the kingdom's security lapses. Just days before, Saudi officials described bin Laden and al-Qaida as "weak and nonexistent."
The White House insists Saudi Arabia must "deal with the fact that it has terrorists inside its own country."
Fagih contended such demands are not likely to produce results because the country's pervasive police have failed to prevent radical Islamist groups from proliferating and extending their popular support, Reuters reported.
He also dismissed U.S. demands for a weakening of the strict Wahhabi religious influence in Saudi Arabia, arguing it was stronger in earlier decades when there was little anti-American feeling in the country.
Fagih asserted the problem is the "decadent, oppressive, secretive regime, which is driving the country to chaos by its corruption and absolute dictatorship."
"The Americans should push for accountability and transparency, not interfere in Islamic affairs," he said, insisting openness could help defuse social and economic discontent among frustrated youth.
However, Sulaiman Al-Hattlan, a columnist for the Saudi pro-government daily Al Watan, puts the blame squarely on Wahhabi dominance.
In a New York Times op-ed yesterday, he wrote:
Because of the dominance of Wahhabism, Saudi society has been exposed to only one school of thought, one that teaches hatred of Jews, Christians and certain Muslims, like Shiites and liberal and moderate Sunnis. But we Saudis must acknowledge that our real enemy is religious fanaticism. We have to stop talking about the need for reform and actually start it, particularly in education. Otherwise, what happened here on Monday night could be the beginning of a war that leads to the Talibanization of our society.
On the streets of Riyadh yesterday, I saw thousands of angry Saudis. I am angry, too. What our extremists exported is coming back to hit us, dreadfully, at home. This Saudi anger could be a sign that our society soon might be able to start looking at itself.
Fagih's reform group, launched in 1994, is using various means of communication, including a new TV channel, to get around official censorship of information in Saudi Arabia.
Saudis 'supportive'
of bin Laden
Dissident says al-Qaida can survive any kingdom crackdown
? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Osama bin Laden has broad support in his native Saudi Arabia that will enable his al-Qaida network to survive any crackdown, according to a leading Saudi dissident.
In Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida has a "supportive, sheltering environment where hostility to the United States is immense," said Saad al-Fagih, head of the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, in an interview with Reuters.
Al-Qaida is the chief suspect in Monday's suicide bomb attacks against U.S. targets in Riyadh that killed 34 people.
Fagih, a 44-year-old British-trained surgeon, said he sees signs bin Laden is prepared to attack the royal family and other Saudis regarded as protectors of U.S. interests.
"Previously he had banned attacks on the Saudi establishment because perceptions in society are against targeting any Muslim even if he is corrupt, immoral or a member of the royal family," he told Reuters.
Fagih rejected as naive the idea that the Saudi royal family was "soft" on Islamist militants, but he asserted the aging monarchy is out of touch with its people.
The royals' obsession with secrecy makes them inclined to conceal problems from the outside world, he said.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., al-Qaida has suffered losses in personnel and logistics, Fatigh noted, but bin Laden's followers have made compensatory gains in Saudi Arabia, where they are welcomed.
According to Fagih, resentment against the U.S. rose in Saudi Arabia with the capture of Baghdad by coalition troops, regarded as the greatest humiliation Muslims had suffered since Israel seized East Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
Dealing with terrorists
In the wake of Monday's bombings, the Saudi royals are faced with U.S. criticism of the kingdom's security lapses. Just days before, Saudi officials described bin Laden and al-Qaida as "weak and nonexistent."
The White House insists Saudi Arabia must "deal with the fact that it has terrorists inside its own country."
Fagih contended such demands are not likely to produce results because the country's pervasive police have failed to prevent radical Islamist groups from proliferating and extending their popular support, Reuters reported.
He also dismissed U.S. demands for a weakening of the strict Wahhabi religious influence in Saudi Arabia, arguing it was stronger in earlier decades when there was little anti-American feeling in the country.
Fagih asserted the problem is the "decadent, oppressive, secretive regime, which is driving the country to chaos by its corruption and absolute dictatorship."
"The Americans should push for accountability and transparency, not interfere in Islamic affairs," he said, insisting openness could help defuse social and economic discontent among frustrated youth.
However, Sulaiman Al-Hattlan, a columnist for the Saudi pro-government daily Al Watan, puts the blame squarely on Wahhabi dominance.
In a New York Times op-ed yesterday, he wrote:
Because of the dominance of Wahhabism, Saudi society has been exposed to only one school of thought, one that teaches hatred of Jews, Christians and certain Muslims, like Shiites and liberal and moderate Sunnis. But we Saudis must acknowledge that our real enemy is religious fanaticism. We have to stop talking about the need for reform and actually start it, particularly in education. Otherwise, what happened here on Monday night could be the beginning of a war that leads to the Talibanization of our society.
On the streets of Riyadh yesterday, I saw thousands of angry Saudis. I am angry, too. What our extremists exported is coming back to hit us, dreadfully, at home. This Saudi anger could be a sign that our society soon might be able to start looking at itself.
Fagih's reform group, launched in 1994, is using various means of communication, including a new TV channel, to get around official censorship of information in Saudi Arabia.
