I Guess This Means the Invasion of Saudi Arabia is a "GO"!


PDA






bountyhunter
October 6, 2005, 06:07 PM
Quoting Mr. Bush in a speech today:

"Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power."

I sure hope I live long enough to see a president who actually will kick their butts..... but, I'm not holding my breath.:barf:




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171420,00.html






Shortly after the president's speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, issued a statement blasting Bush's plan.

"Once again the president had an opportunity to lay out for the American people the facts on the ground in Iraq and his strategy to achieve the military, political and economic success needed in order to bring our troops home. Once again, he failed to do so. Instead, the president continued to falsely assert there is a link between the war in Iraq and the tragedy of September 11th, a link that did not and does not exist," Reid said.



Well, sure..... if you're going to NITPICK you can make anything sound bad....

If you enjoyed reading about "I Guess This Means the Invasion of Saudi Arabia is a "GO"!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Headless Thompson Gunner
October 6, 2005, 06:19 PM
One of the primary goals is to stabilize the middle east. Saudi Arabia is pretty darn stable as is. Just how would it be beneficial to attack Saudi Arabia?

Oh, and you are aware that Mecca lies in the heart of Saudi Arabia, right? You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right?

Or are you just looking for one more excuse to bash Bush? :rolleyes:

bountyhunter
October 6, 2005, 06:27 PM
One of the primary goals is to stabilize the middle east. Saudi Arabia is pretty darn stable as is. Just how would it be beneficial to attack Saudi Arabia?

1) Stop the unbridled flow of money from wealthy saudis which has been supporting Al Qaeda for 12 years and paid for the 9/11 attacks.

2) Stop the money flow from the wahabbists inside SA who are currently funding the insurgency in Iraq killing more Americans.

3) Put the world on notice that the claim the president made about holding ANYBODY who funded terrorists accountable was not just BS.


Oh, and you are aware that Mecca lies in the heart of Saudi Arabia, right? You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right? So, you are saying we run the risk of upsetting the Islamic fundamentalists? Yeah.... I see your point, we are on such good terms with them now we wouldn't want to risk upsetting our cordial relations.

Or are you just looking for one more excuse to bash Bush?

That's an original comeback. For the record, he has provided so many reasons to be bashed I don't need to look for any new ones. Weapons of Mass DISTRACTION? Destroying the only secular regime in the middle east opposing Islamofascism?

Yeah... it's all just "bashing"......

fourays2
October 6, 2005, 06:28 PM
"Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power."


One of the primary goals is to stabilize the middle east. Saudi Arabia is pretty darn stable as is. Just how would it be beneficial to attack Saudi Arabia?

Oh, and you are aware that Mecca lies in the heart of Saudi Arabia, right? You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right?

Or are you just looking for one more excuse to bash Bush?


well 15 of the 19 hijackers were from SA so that kind of makes SA the heart of the power.

bountyhunter
October 6, 2005, 06:29 PM
well 15 of the 19 hijackers were from SA so that kind of makes SA the heart of the power.

Ya think? :cuss:

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 6, 2005, 06:45 PM
Critical thinking at its finest...

The Saudi Government is generally a stabilizing force in the region. Their leaders are amenable to the usual tools of statecraft. They are guided by rational self interest. Their fundamentalism goes only so far as necessary to retain the support of their people. Contrast this with Saddam, who was irrational and unpredictable, and who sought at every turn to attack his neighbors or his own people.

Many of the Saudi people are fundamentalists of a rabid nature. True, many of them support and fund terrorism. True, most of the hijackers were natives of Saudi Arabia. But the problem lies with the average inhabitants of the nation, not it's leaders.

To eliminate the source of fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would require that we destroy the civillian population. But the U.S. can NOT go into a foreign country and attack the civilian poplation. I doubt we have the means, and I sincerely hope we never have the intent.

Attacking a government is another matter. Governments can be morally attacked, when our national interests call for such. Governments can, as a practical matter, be defeated (witness Saddam).

But in the case of Saudia Arabia, eliminating the political leadership doesn't solve the problem. The problem lies with the people, not the government.

Thus it is both unwise and unproductive to attack Saudia Arabia, as a political matter.

Consider also that nearly all Muslims consider the Saudi government/nation to have a sacred duty to defend the Holy City. If the U.S. were to attack the guardians of Mecca, we would find ourselves on the receiving end of the combined hatred of nearly every last Muslim man, woman and child. As it stands now, only a few of the extremists bother to actively oppose the U.S.

The extremists are trouble enough; attacking Saudia Arabia would make things exponentially worse.

Bush is smart enough to understand all this.

Gordon Fink
October 6, 2005, 06:52 PM
If the conquest of Iraq works out well, we shouldn’t need to invade Saudi Arabia.

~G. Fink

Deavis
October 6, 2005, 06:52 PM
So, you are saying we run the risk of upsetting the Islamic fundamentalists? Yeah.... I see your point, we are on such good terms with them now we wouldn't want to risk upsetting our cordial relations.

No, you are not seeing his point. Attacking Saudi and taking Mecca would not just upset the stereotypical fundamentalists you so quaintly brush off, it would incite backlash against us from all Muslims. What you said is akin to saying, "Yeah, I see your point. Blowing up a monumental set of towers in NYC will only put us on bad terms with those damn New Yorkers and besides, they don't like anyone else anyways." I believe an act like that pissed off far more than redneck beer-swiling fundamentalists.

Your understanding of the devotion to holy sites, especially that holy site, for those cultures is severly lacking. Do you even realize the significance of Mecca and what it stands for? Any idea about how many people make the pillgrimage to that site every year? Do you realize that some people save their entire life to make that trip. Yeah... you are cetainly correct, it would only piss of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalist being every Muslim who has ever cracked open the Koran.

jeff-10
October 6, 2005, 06:56 PM
If anyone is going to be next it will be Iran not Saudi Arabia, a country that basically does whatever Bush tells them to. We won't be attacking anyone though unfortunately because we have our hands full with Iraq and Afganistan.

bountyhunter are you a disgruntled Kerry voter by any chance?

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 6, 2005, 06:58 PM
bountyhunter are you a disgruntled Kerry voter by any chance? Ha! :D Go read some of his old posts. They all have the same theme: Bush is BAAAD!

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 07:32 PM
You don't have to be a disgruntled Kerry voter to see that Bush has no plan for Iraq, or any idea of how to bring our invasion to a conclusion.

The poor sap who "wins" the presidency in 2008 is going to have his work cut out for him.

bountyhunter
October 6, 2005, 07:47 PM
bountyhunter are you a disgruntled Kerry voter by any chance? Posts like that are the reason I frequently believe posting is a 100% waste of time.

For the record, I predicted Kerry would lose and referred to him as the one man who would snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. I also said I could have found a better candidate by tying a chicked leg to the back of my Chevy and driving past a homeless shelter.

But in the world of Bush lovers, anybody who has no tolerance for liars and those who throw away American soldier's lives on a fool's errand must be a Kerry lover.

whatever.

But think about it..... what does it say for Bush when the only response you have for his thundering incompetence, outright arrogance, mangling of the truth, blind eyes to the actions of the idiots he appointed....

is to say: "He isn't Kerry."

Well, he isn't Charles Manson either.

That doesn't make me any happier with what he has done.

bountyhunter
October 6, 2005, 07:56 PM
Your understanding of the devotion to holy sites, especially that holy site, for those cultures is severly lacking. Well... we all can't be as scholarly and well informed on the infrastructure of the middle east as Bush whose policy is: "all Arabs are alike..... these Arabs did a bad thing, so we should invade an Arab country."

Yeah, I guess I can't see the wisdom of that.

If the U.S. were to attack the guardians of Mecca, we would find ourselves on the receiving end of the combined hatred of nearly every last Muslim man, woman and child. As it stands now, only a few of the extremists bother to actively oppose the U.S. The Bush propoganda fantasy that "only the extremists oppose the US" is just that... a total fantasy.

In Saudi Arabia, mainstream schools openly teach hatred of the US. Their clerics call for young Saudis to go to Iraq to fight the US, and all Bush does is cover up the truth.

And before you pull the trigger on that last statement..... go and search the web and find out the content of the 28 pages Bush had censored from a classified report which detailed the saudi support and involvement with Al qaeda.

You try to project the myth that we have an ally to protect there, when all they are is an arrogant bunch of liars who use the US like a two dollar whore. When their borders are threatened they demand we send our soldiers to die to defend them.... and we do. When they are not threatened, they throw us off our bases and out like a pack of beggars.... and we take that. They jack up the price of oil and ream us as thanks for our defending them.

Don't try to sell me that garbage about what we "risk" invading SA. When you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to risk. News flash: the Muslims already hate us.

bountyhunter
October 6, 2005, 07:58 PM
If the conquest of Iraq works out well
:D :D :D :D :D

Oh..... I'm sorry..... you were serious?

Cosmoline
October 6, 2005, 08:01 PM
I took it to mean we will have to invade ourselves in Iraq to liberate Iraq :D

Fletchette
October 6, 2005, 08:02 PM
I will have to agree - Saudi Arabia is as close to "the heart of the problem" as it gets.

I do not think Saudi Arabia is "stable" in the sense that the royalty there represents the people. The royalty may do us favors once in awhile, but they also do favors for the terrorists. In essence, they are irrelevant.

The average man on the stree in Saudi Arabia is much more likely to be a Wahabbist, anti-American terrorist supporter. Much of the funding for world-wide terrorism come from Saudi activists that gather money for "charity".

The terrorist problem is very much a clash of cultures, and the culture that is mostly to blame for anti-American violence exists in a region that includes most of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia seems to be the highest concentration.

Mnemesyne
October 6, 2005, 08:16 PM
Don't forget about Medina the other Islam holy city...Which if I recall correctly is also within Saudi Arabia.....Find a way to disrupt and remove the terror without disturbing the two sacred sites and it'd be a win/win scenerio...The Saudi's just want our money....that's the only reason they keep us as "allies" for lack of a better term...or, I suppose we are their cash cow....Best way for the US to stave off the terror is to remove our dependance on foreign oil sources and rebuild up our military so we can properly defend our nation against these boneheads......


Just my 2cp

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 6, 2005, 08:23 PM
The terrorist problem is very much a clash of cultures, and the culture that is mostly to blame for anti-American violence exists in a region that includes most of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia seems to be the highest concentration. This is the essence of the problem.

The genius of the Bush plan is that, if successful, it has the potential to eliminate that clash of cultures. The goal in Iraq is democracy and free market economy - basically the Marshal Plan all over again. If it succeeds, the people in Iraq will be freer, wealthier, safer, and generally better off than any of their neighbors. Their neghbors will see this, and they will eventually reject their past fundamentalism and demand a future that holds the blessings of democracy.

The key to this plan is to succeed in Iraq. Iraq has the potential to becme a beacon of truth. Freedom makes life better!

It worked for the U.S. It worked in Eastern Europe and (formerly) Soviet Russia. It's currently working in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China. Freedom makes life better!

It will work in the middle east. At least, if we don't give up too soon.

jeff-10
October 6, 2005, 08:46 PM
bountyhunter you never really answered the question on whether or not you were a disgruntled Kerry voter. FWIW I voted for Bush and am more than happy with my vote. I am not one of those people that think the president is to blame for or can solve the worlds problems.

Gordon Fink
October 6, 2005, 08:55 PM
Oh … I’m sorry … you were serious?

Perfectly. By making an example out of Iraq, we may not have to conquer even one more oil state to accomplish our goals. The Saudis and other potential enemies will step into line when faced with the alternative.

Please understand that I use the terms we and our loosely here. Oh, and terrorism is only incidental to this discussion.

Now, if we botch Iraq, then we’ll be in for a world of hurt, because the only thing worse than being wrong is being wrong and stupid.

~G. Fink

Standing Wolf
October 6, 2005, 10:27 PM
You've pondered the implications of attacking the holiest city in all of Islam, right?

No, no, no, no, no! There's no need to attack Mecca and Medina. That would be a complete waste of time and effort and blood, plus it would hurt the Islamic terrorists' precious little feelings.

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 10:36 PM
Where we attack is a strategic question that will evolve with this war. Nothing is off the table. Or should be. I seem to remember our civilians being attacked in New York, among other places.

As for "holy sites," why do you think the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center? In their minds THAT was OUR holiest of sites.

longeyes
October 6, 2005, 11:09 PM
Let's see, which is "holier," Mecca or the Library of Congress? Medina or the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art?

Two can play at culturecide.

bjbarron
October 6, 2005, 11:22 PM
except your own gov't was behind 9-11, not a bunch of dumb Arabs that can barely drive a car.

*** :confused: When did they change the name of this forum to moveon.org?

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 6, 2005, 11:49 PM
except your own gov't was behind 9-11, not a bunch of dumb Arabs that can barely drive a car. I've heard this allegation a few times, but nobody has ever provided any evidence to back it up. Can you provide that evidence?

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 7, 2005, 12:02 AM
Tell me where to look. Assume that I'm a brainless moron. I can't handle simple tasks like tying my own shoes. Unmasking far reaching government conspiracies is definitely too much for me.

So help me out here. Tell me where to look, and please be specific.

longeyes
October 7, 2005, 12:08 AM
Those buildings were detonated from within? Then what were those things that rammed them at 500 knots?

CAnnoneer
October 7, 2005, 12:44 AM
War is in the will. Have we been fighting in the right place?

Yes, if Iraq becomes a modern democracy, it will have a very positive influence on the region in the long run, and indeed that may be a way to resolve the conflict. But before you can heal your enemy, you must bring him to his knees. Cases of study: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan.

We must crush their will first. Then we do the Marshall Plan MkII. What we are doing right now is the equivalent of invading and rebuilding Duche's Italy with our own money while Germany sends Hitlerjugend commanded by Otto Scorzeni's across the Alps. FUBAR.

Mecca and Messina? Holy cities? Fear of insulting other Muslims? Screw them. How about 200 Mt pure plutonium joy at each location? If their god is so powerful and their victory inevitable, let them go ahead and explain how it is they are so whipped.

I am starting to get really fed up with religious zealotry in the 3rd millenium, after Man has split the atom, built machines in his own image, and set foot on another planet.

Deavis
October 7, 2005, 01:49 AM
Well... we all can't be as scholarly and well informed on the infrastructure of the middle east as Bush whose policy is: "all Arabs are alike..... these Arabs did a bad thing, so we should invade an Arab country."

First, Bush didn’t propose invading Saudi, you did. So, does that make you less informed than him since he hasn’t done or proposed it? Please, can you clarify Bush’s lack of knowledge with hard facts rather than an emotional diatribe?

I’m not a Bush fan either, but your quotes read straight out of the “throw a liberal tantrum” playbook. Post something of substance about him and his policies. For instance...

In Saudi Arabia, mainstream schools openly teach hatred of the US. Their clerics call for young Saudis to go to Iraq to fight the US, and all Bush does is cover up the truth. And before you pull the trigger on that last statement..... go and search the web and find out the content of the 28 pages Bush had censored from a classified report which detailed the saudi support and involvement with Al qaeda.

Do you know this for a fact? Have you been to Saudi before? Do you know anything about their schooling? How does Bush cover up the truth? Does he censor each newspaper in the U.S.? If the truth is hidden, how come you know this alleged truth? Give us a link to a believable source that can verify your statement. It doesn't even have tobe a peer-reviewed source, which is standard for good objective scientific debate, it jsut needs to be a place that I can actually see some reason/logic/facts displayed and cited.

Don't try to sell me that garbage about what we "risk" invading SA. When you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to risk. News flash: the Muslims already hate us.

Please, enlighten me about the Saudi people, after all, it isn’t like my family lived there for a few years or anything like that. I have absolutely no idea about how that culture works or what the possible ramification are of an invasion. Please, drop the knowledge bomb on me, I am waiting with giddy anticipation. I’m sure you have spent time there and know quite a bit about the average person and their feelings. While you are at it, let's talk about the ramifications of an oil freeze by the other muslim countries after we invade SA. Certainly you have got this figured out. Pull the trigger and post the big one with your plan so we can all learn something. (In case you need clarification, that is a satire of a liberal tantrum except asking relevant questions with absoultely no personal malice in it at all.)

As for "holy sites," why do you think the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center? In their minds THAT was OUR holiest of sites.

Yep, and look what happened. You can’t give people an event that focuses their resolve unless you are willing to break that resolve with the utmost prejudice. Goliad, the Alamo, Concord, etc. Hatred and devotion are powerful when used in violence.

I am starting to get really fed up with religious zealotry in the 3rd millenium, after Man has split the atom, built machines in his own image, and set foot on another planet.

Just curious, how do any of those thing lessen people’s religious inclinations. If anything the farther we look, the more questions can’t be answered. An interesting topic and one that will result in thread lock. PM me, I’d like to hear your reasoning because a guy at work was debating just the opposite view with me the other day!

gc70
October 7, 2005, 01:56 AM
How about 200 Mt pure plutonium joy at each location? If their god is so powerful and their victory inevitable, let them go ahead and explain how it is they are so whipped.I saw that some Muslims characterized Katrina as a demonstration of God's displeasure with the infidel Americans. Is this a way of applying Muslim logic against Muslims?

CAnnoneer
October 7, 2005, 02:23 AM
I saw that some Muslims characterized Katrina as a demonstration of God's displeasure with the infidel Americans. Is this a way of applying Muslim logic against Muslims?

Communication is only possible when at least one side is ready to speak in a language the other side can understand. If their chosen language is violence, then let's communicate.

How is that any different than dealing with Nazi Germany? Both have a virulent zealous exclusive ideology, both have organization and resources, both consider civilians combatants, both advocate total war to the bitter end. After the Nazis hit London, Coventry, etc., they got Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc. Germany was reborn in the ashes of a complete and utter collapse. Same goes with Japan. Why do we expect that something else will suffice with the jihadists?

Just curious, how do any of those thing lessen people’s religious inclinations.

There will always be those who choose the emotional comfort of a fantasy to the starkness of reality. That is even more so in a complex, changing, challenging world. Thus I am not surprised that some get soured up on reality. What is disconcerting is the numbers and influence of the self-lobotomists. That is why I respect Amnish people - they want to live in simpler times, and they do, but they don't come blowing me up because I like my computer, new car, DVD player etc. But when jihadists fly planes in my skyscrapers, and when local fundamentalists insist my public schools teach Intelligent Design, I have a BIG problem.

thorn726
October 7, 2005, 06:04 AM
the drones are so well programmed.

sure, there's nothing to see here , move along.

terrorists? no, none in SA. no possible way there could be anything worth getting riled up about over there.

they're actually poor as dirt anyway, forget them.

look here i got a shiny object ! ..... and the drones are distracted...

we'll end up seeing it eventually, another sizable terrorist attack in the US. i do have confidence our govt is doing just enough to prevent anything massive, but we'll see some buses blow up or something eventually- and the bomber will be from SA AGAin, and we will blame the neighboring countries that harbor the Terrorist camps..


NOTHING going on in SA is encouraging, funding, assisting any of this anti american behavior, they need us too much, they love us.

Sindawe
October 7, 2005, 06:21 AM
NOTHING going on in SA is encouraging, funding, assisting any of this anti american behavior, they need us too much, they love us. Anybody wanna buy a bridge? Used only on Sundays by little old ladies on their way to church.

Better to occupy and close the cities of Mecca and Medina, much history and art resides there, and their destuction would lessen all our cultures beyond measure. But if to the fire they must be commited to save the culture that will take us off planet for good, well, lets "get it on and get it over with". War is a cruel business, and the crueler it is, the sooner it is done with.

JohnBT
October 7, 2005, 09:09 AM
"Or are you just looking for one more excuse to bash Bush?"

Figure that out all by your lonesome. :neener: Just pulling your leg.

John

Master Blaster
October 7, 2005, 09:59 AM
Personally, I think they all want to see you me and all of our children dead. They hate us they hate our way of life they hate, freedom, personal choice with respect to religion and everything else, and individualism.

If it had been up to me I would have taken the area that contains most of the oil fields in the middle east, and then I would have left Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to ROT in HELL. Nation building????? Horse manure, there is a reason that despotism is the only form of government to work in those countries. Yep we would have had a new state called East Texas, and all the damn oil we could use.

Bomb them all back to the stone age and take all the oil fields.

France and Germany could throw rotten cheese and bitter beer at us and Russia could have cried.

If Iran keeps up building Nukes, which they will if we let the EU negotiate with them (who do you think gave them the equipment and know how in the first place, France, Germany), we will have to go in again anyway and by then we will be facing nuclear weapons.


Folks keep whinning its the poor oppressed people the down trodden they have no choice but to attack us big meanies cause they are starving.

NO! Every one of the Terrorists that has attacked us is from the Upper class, well educated, westernized, speak foreign languages, form rich families, Osama Bin Laden, wealthy well educated, Aiman al Zawahiri a doctor speaks 4 languages from a wealthy family, Mohammed Atta, wealthy Egyptian well educated all of the hijackers were, all of the London attackers, all well educated in the west. They hate us they want to kill us because we are not Muslums, and they consider us an affront to Allah, unworthy to breathe the air on this planet. They smile in our face and wait with a long knife to stab us in the back. Wake up folks.

The people attacking us ARE NOT POOR DOWNTRODDEN MEMBERS of their society. The wealthy the elite are in on this In Saudi Arabia, in Iran, and every western nation where they have immigrated.

Fastlane
October 7, 2005, 10:42 AM
Well said, Master Blaster... +1 from me...

Poodleshooter
October 7, 2005, 12:42 PM
Many of the Saudi people are fundamentalists of a rabid nature. True, many of them support and fund terrorism. True, most of the hijackers were natives of Saudi Arabia. But the problem lies with the average inhabitants of the nation, not it's leaders.

To eliminate the source of fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would require that we destroy the civillian population. But the U.S. can NOT go into a foreign country and attack the civilian poplation. I doubt we have the means, and I sincerely hope we never have the intent.

Attacking a government is another matter. Governments can be morally attacked, when our national interests call for such. Governments can, as a practical matter, be defeated (witness Saddam).

But in the case of Saudia Arabia, eliminating the political leadership doesn't solve the problem. The problem lies with the people, not the government.
While from the news it seems that your premises about the Saudi people are true, I have to disagree with your conclusion. We have attacked citizens before,and done so under what I think were perfectly moral circumstances. We did so in Japan and Germany because in Germany at least, the same problem existed: the citizens were just as responsible as the government for the actions of their nation. This modern concept that attacking citizens is morally wrong is ignores the fact that whole groups of people can indeed be quite evil and malicious,and holding them responsible for this is not wrong. If you hold that only governments can be held responsible for the actions of nations, than the entire concept of WWII strategic bombing of cities would have to be accepted as morally wrong, and I certainly don't see it as such.
We certainly have the means to commit war against global radical Islamic states,as witnessed by all of the "instant sunshine" comments that have a grain of truth in them. We do possess the ability.
My only caveat at this point would be that it's difficult to definitively prove your premise that a majority of the Saudi people support terrorism or war against us. Should that ever be made known as an objective fact, I would have no problem going to war against their citizenry.

shootinstudent
October 7, 2005, 01:02 PM
We certainly have the means to commit war against global radical Islamic states,as witnessed by all of the "instant sunshine" comments that have a grain of truth in them. We do possess the ability.

This is a great forum for reading about firearms (and getting me to buy more!), and so I'm sorry I have to stop lurking on this topic, but I can't remain silent when I see statements that support killing civillians.

Besides the fact that attacking a Muslim holy site would turn the entire Muslim world, all 1.2 billion (and righteously so) against the US as opposed to a small percentage of radicals, the moral argument here is bad.

If it's justified to bomb civillians because of the positions they support, then I guess every member of the KKK in America should be executed without trial, and have his house burned down and all his children killed too. Punishing people for their ideas is as un-American as it gets, and if you open up warfare to people who support, rather than those who actively practice, violence, that is precisely what you are doing. There is also the fact that, in advocating bombing civillians, you would have to justify killing a bunch of kids for what their parents did. In that light, no, the carpet bombing in WWII was not morally justified. Necessary? Maybe, but the fact that we found something necessary has no relationship to whether or not it is moral to do it.

Killing a bunch of people who do not and never have directly and personally caused harm to others is always unjust. I don't see any logic in "collective punishment" or in imposing death sentences on large numbers of people based on what some percentage of those people claim to support.

Gordon Fink
October 7, 2005, 01:07 PM
If you hold that only governments can be held responsible for the actions of nations, than the entire concept of WWII strategic bombing of cities would have to be accepted as morally wrong, and I certainly don’t see it as such.…

It was morally wrong, though we may excuse our elders for mistakes made in the fog of war. If I recall correctly, the postwar strategic bombing survey revealed that strategic bombing was largely ineffective, both physically and psychologically, thus the shift to today’s doctrine of precision bombing and minimizing collateral damage.

~G. Fink

antarti
October 7, 2005, 01:20 PM
But the problem lies with the average inhabitants of the nation, not it's leaders.

Well, I guess there's a first time for everything :rolleyes: :barf:

I suppose spreading Wahabism and funding madrassas (sp?) all over the planet doesn't make them as culpable as the average Bedouin who looks after himself and his family? :banghead:

There's a reason we complain about the public schools right here in our country, because they are supremely effective at teaching propaganda and nothing else. Thankfully, we haven't exported those throughout the world. Now tell me again how the House of Saud isn't culpable for the entire movement?

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 01:51 PM
Tell me where to look. Assume that I'm a brainless moron. I can't handle simple tasks like tying my own shoes. Unmasking far reaching government conspiracies is definitely too much for me.

You said that, not me:\

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml

Bush Won't Reveal Saudi 9/11 Info

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP / CBS)


(CBS/AP) President Bush refused on Tuesday to release a congressional report alleging possible links between Saudi Arabian officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers. The White House sought to question a Saudi citizen who befriended two of the hijackers.

The information is widely believed to center on Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers. Saudi Arabia has vehemently denied supporting the hijackers.

Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.

Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.

The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.

////

House and Senate members released the full, 850-page report finding a series of errors and miscommunications kept U.S. authorities from pursuing clues before the attacks. The 28-page section dealing with "sensitive national security matters" was almost entirely redacted.





http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030804/scheer20030729

Read Between the Lines of Those 28 Missing Pages

Love the truth; it ultimately bows to no master. Even for the President of the United States, the commander in chief of the world's most powerful propaganda machine, deceptions inevitably unravel.

In the last week we've moved from the 16 deceitful words in George W. Bush's State of the Union speech to the 28 White House-censored pages in the congressional report that dealt with Saudi Arabia's role in the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States.

Yet even in its sanitized version, the bipartisan report, long delayed by an embarrassed White House, makes clear that the United States should have focused on Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, in the aftermath of September 11.

As we know, but our government tends to ignore, fifteen of the nineteen hijackers came from Saudi Arabia; none came from Iraq. Leaks from the censored portions of the report indicate that at least some of those Saudi terrorists were in close contact with--and financed by--members of the Saudi elite, extending into the ranks of the royal family.

The report finds no such connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists. It is now quite clear that the President--unwilling to deal with the ties between Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden--pursued Hussein as a politically convenient scapegoat. By drawing attention away from the Muslim fanatic networks centered in Saudi Arabia, Bush diverted the war against terror. That seems to be the implication of the 28 pages, which the White House demanded be kept from the American people when the full report was released.

Even many in Bush's own party are irritated that the President doesn't think we can be trusted with the truth.

"I went back and read every one of those pages thoroughly," Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on "Meet the Press." "My judgment is 95 percent of that information could be declassified, become uncensored so the American people would know."

Asked why he thought the pages were excised, Shelby, a leading pro-Administration conservative, said, "I think it might be embarrassing to international relations."

Quite an embarrassment if the censored pages reveal that the Bush Administration covered up the Saudi connection to the terrorist attacks.

Obviously alluding to Saudi Arabia, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), the former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said Sunday, "High officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and then execute the tragedy of September 11."

On Monday, Graham, responding to reports that Saudi Arabia would welcome making public some of the pages, called on Bush to fully declassify "the currently censored pages."

Newsweek, relying on anonymous government sources, reported Monday that the "connections between high-level Saudi princes and associates of the hijackers" included helping Al Qaeda operatives enter the United States and financing their residence in San Diego, where they plotted their infamous attacks.

Remember too that it was well known that Saudi charities with ties to the royal House of Saud were bankrolling the Al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan--even as George H.W. Bush visited the kingdom shortly after his son was elected, eager to secure contracts for his then-employer, the Carlyle Group.

The fact is, Riyadh, unlike Baghdad, has long been a key hotbed of extremist Muslim organizing. By shielding and nurturing our relationship with the Saudi sheiks, Bush & Son have provided cover for those who support terror.

After all, is it really likely that career-conscious FBI and CIA officers would be willing to criticize possible Al Qaeda-House of Saud links when the President's father is out hustling business ties with the same family?

Even after September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration immediately protected Saudis in the United States, including allowing members of the large Bin Laden family who were in this country to be spirited home on their government's aircraft before they could be questioned. This at a time when many immigrants from all over the world were being detained arbitrarily.

Bush has used September 11 as an excuse to turn this country upside down, making a hash of civil liberties and bankrupting our federal government with unprecedented deficit spending on war and its materiel. Before we do any more irrevocable damage in the name of an open-ended "war against evil," we have a right and a responsibility to confront the uncensored truth of what happened that black day--no matter what powerful people are brought to account.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 01:53 PM
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/000201.html

FREE THE CAPITOL HILL 28!

Jane Galt objects to the release of the 28 censored pages about Saudi involvement in the 9-11 massacres on the grounds that, once we acknowledge publicly that the Saudi Royal Family was directly responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans, we will have no alternative but to go to war, conquer the Kingdom, and then face the rage of the "Arab street" at the spectacle of infidel boots marching through Mecca and Medina.

I don't agree with her analysis, but she deserves credit for putting the real issue on the table; the Administration's "protecting sources and methods" story just won't wash.

I think we can face the facts without going to war. No doubt, Saudi participation in that attack, if verified, would constitute a casus belli; but the existence of a casus belli does not obligate the injured state to go to war. The Iranian hostage-taking of 1979,, for example, was a casus belli.

Perhaps Jane means only that releasing the information would make war politically inevitable in terms of domestic U.S. politics. I doubt it. It would make it politically necessary for the Bush Administration to do change its stance toward the Saudi monarchy and its support for the worldwide Wahhabbi movement, but "doing something" could and would stop far short of invasion.

After all, who but the neocons and radio talk show hosts and warbloggers would actually support invading Saudi Arabia? Not the Bush team, not the corporate sector, not the Democrats, not the mass media, and not the majority of the people, in the absence of the kind of all-out propaganda drive that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

Now an argument could be made -- and it's one I'm not professionally competent to judge -- that the US national interest is best served by appeasing the Saudis rather than confronting them. That argument would be politically very unpopular if the report were released; that is why the Bush team is so intent on not releasing it.

But if this President is so incapable of leadership that his only means of restraining popular fury is to keep the public in the dark about who attacked us on 9-11, that's the best argument I've heard yet for getting ourselves a new President.




http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15409


On July 29, Prince Saud el-Faisal paid an extraordinary visit to the Bush White House. For an hour, he and George W. Bush discussed the 28-page section of the joint Congressional report on 9/11 that evidently implicates agents of his country’s government in the terrorist attack. The prince’s ostensible reason for coming to see the President -- whose family has long maintained close connections with the Saudi royals -- was to ask Mr. Bush to declassify those 28 pages because, as he declared at a press conference: "We have nothing to hide, and we do not seek, nor do we need, to be shielded."

That glibly ridiculous assertion is contradicted by the repressive habits of his family’s autocratic regime, which has a lot to hide from its own people as well as ours. Besides, the prince knew before he landed in Washington that the President would decline his plea. //

As Senator Charles Schumer suggested, the prince visited the President to improve the kingdom’s image rather than to inform the American public.









9/11 Report Ups Heat On Saudis, Washington
By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD STAFF
The Bush administration, already embattled over its use of doubtful intelligence in building its case for the war against Iraq, is gearing up for renewed scrutiny over reports that it has hampered investigations of the September 11 attacks.

A congressional report on the attacks is set to be released in the middle of next week, containing new information about American government mistakes and about Saudi financing of terrorism, according to Capitol Hill sources. The administration has been fighting with Congress for more than six months over the content of the report, which was drafted last December and has been undergoing security vetting since then, prompting accusations of a cover-up.

////"They have been throwing roadblocks and not cooperating with the investigations into 9/11, so it makes you wonder whether they have something to hide.... We have to get to the bottom of it, and this means unfettered access."


But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, another New York Democrat, countered that the administration had in fact been stonewalling the 9/11 Commission both by withholding information and by asking to have "minders" present during interviews of officials.

"The last time I heard about government minders was under Saddam Hussein," Nadler told the Forward. "There is a clear pattern of cover-up toward this commission... Because of this attitude and because of the way it has dealt with intelligence on Iraq, it will be very difficult to give any credibility to what the administration has to say."

In the meantime, speculation has mounted about the content of the congressional panel's 800-page final report. Its classified version was completed on December 10; since then, intelligence and law enforcement officials have been vetting its final, public version.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the inquiry and is now a Democratic presidential contender, has been the most outspoken critic of the administration's attitude, publicly accusing the administration of using national security as an excuse to block "embarrassments" and speaking openly of a "cover-up."

Graham has urged the White House to expedite the release of the report and to declassify large parts of it.

Lawmakers familiar with the content refused to speculate on precisely how much would be made public when it is released.

Even the Republican co-chairman of the joint congressional inquiry, Florida Rep. Porter Goss, while not endorsing the cover-up accusations, has complained about the administration's unwillingness to allow public disclosure of crucial information.

/////

Aftergood said he believed the report would include some elements about the highly sensitive issue of the Saudi government's role in terrorism. There is speculation that the Bush administration has been trying to avoid declassifying some damning information about Saudi Arabia.

Although he has not said so explicitly, Graham appeared to be alluding to Saudi Arabia when he told CNN on Monday [July 13] that a chapter in the report dealing with foreign government support for Al Qaeda was likely to be kept classified.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.07.18/news2.html

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 01:54 PM
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/list.htm

Saudi Arabia: Number 1 Terrorist State

Appeasement of Saudi Arabia even in the aftermath of September 11 is absurd and borders on treason. It does nothing to help the Moslem world come out of its state of deep denial for the responsibility for the worst terrorist outrage of all time. This denial is as irrational as the culture and religion that caused it. The real winner of Western appeasement has been Osama bin Laden and like-minded religious fanatics. Brezhinski's "excellent idea" (going back to President Carter) of using fundamentalist Islam to fight Soviet Communism has backfired by failing to grasp Islam's inherent link with violence and intolerance. The US helped create bin Laden then ignored the problem in order to appease Saudi Arabia.

Jonathan Pollard tried to warn both the US and Israel of what was going on and got "nailed to the cross" for treason. Turns out he wasn't the one selling out US Intelligence, the real culprits were a pair of WASP's nailed in the 1990's, not a Jew. But the fact he was a Jew was a ready excuse to silence a fair inquiry. Threatening Americans has become a worthy goal for Ashcroft and Bush.

Saudi Arabia is still the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Spreading the Wahhabi Cult across the Muslim world (including many Muslims in America) and teaching hate and intolerance, even of non-Wahhabi Muslims. The hate being taught in schools and mosques must be ended. The American "crack whore" addiction to cheap oil must end or we will continue to sell-out everything we stand for just to get the next fix. $3 a gallon for gas is cheaper then the next September 11.

Now Saudi Arabia itself may be the target of its own terrorists, as they seemed to have lost control. And the US seems to be planning to use terrorists against Iran. This is stupid because that will also go out of control.

Quoting Henry Kissinger, "The Saudis are pro-American, they have to operate in a difficult region, and ultimately we can manage them." Guess the homicide bombings in Saudi Arabia and the inside help the terrorists got from Saudi officials has proven his point wrong. Unless President Bush stops covering up for Saudi Arabia and using terrorists to bolster American policy, the War on Terrorism is a sick joke.

UNDESIRABLE INFLUENCE: Muslims are regulars at the White House
The Truth About Jonathan Pollard: protecting Saudi Arabia
Are Muslim Americans Victimized? by Daniel Pipes
Q: Can Saudi Arabia (or Islam in general) ever tolerate democracy?

A: "No...In democracy, the elected parliament ranks supreme. It can make anything legal illegal, and vice-versa. In Islam what God specified as Haram (illegal), or Halal (legal), cannot be changed by any parliament, or even by the whole population. These imperatives of right and wrong in Islam are unchangeable." God being the notions of the self-proclaimed prophet Mohammed. For more on this see:


Saudi Arabia fires clerics to cover-up terrorism.
The Saudi 9/11?
Saudi nationals join fighting against U.S. in Iraq
The Koran Debunked
Most American Muslims or at least those groups that speak for them often support terrorism. With Bush it's just greed and oil. With Liberals it's support anything anti-Western and moral relativism. But to continue to ignore the role of Islam, in particular Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalism, is foolish. Quoting Ibn Warraq, the author of Why I Am Not A Muslim:

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism...Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari'a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals....Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world...Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first allegiance is to Islam...they must break the laws of the infidels, and only follow the Law of God, the Shari'a, Islamic Law.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 01:56 PM
http://www.sandiego-online.com/issues/september03/featurec0903.shtml


Though a report on the congressional probe (with 28 censored pages) was finally released in late July, after months of political haggling, there appears to be belated and only tepid interest by our federal government in following the 9/11 money trail to Saudi Arabia.



Terror Two Years After
As we mark the second anniversary of 9/11, questions remain about San Diego’s links to terrorists operating on U.S. soil

By Jamie Reno


Omar Al-Bayoumi, A friend of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego
This month marks the two-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. But do we now have a clear understanding of all the facts behind the horrible events of September 11, 2001? In many ways, no. Though a report on the congressional probe (with 28 censored pages) was finally released in late July, after months of political haggling, there appears to be belated and only tepid interest by our federal government in following the 9/11 money trail to Saudi Arabia.

Terrorists could not have pulled off such an ambitious offensive without substantial financial and logistical support, here and abroad. However, countless intelligence leads that might help solve this mystery appear to have been underinvestigated or completely overlooked by the FBI, particularly in San Diego.

In the past few weeks, San Diego Magazine has interviewed a half-dozen people with various financial or other connections to the San Diego–based terrorists or to the enigmatic, moneyed San Diego Saudis who knew the hijackers. Not one had ever been contacted by bureau agents.

Serious questions about the 9/11 investigation, including accusations of Saudi favoritism, are coming from liberals and conservatives alike. Congress collectively called the events leading up to the tragedy the “biggest intelligence failure in American history.” And Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, a political watchdog group that had previously set its sights on President Clinton, wonders whether national energy and economic policy have influenced the war on terrorism.

“Are we laying off of Saudi Arabia because of the links between the American oil industry and the Saudis?” Klayman asked reporters after a recent court hearing. “That’s the kind of information the American people need to know.”

Looking for answers to Klayman’s question, it seems logical to start in San Diego, where even the Congressional report suggests the connections to al Qaeda and the Saudi government are potentially profound.

Most San Diegans know about Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar and Hani Hanjoor, the three Saudi hijackers who spent time here. But less is known about Saad Al-Habeeb, Omar Al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, three recondite Saudi nationals who’ve been linked to the terrorists and to the Saudi government. All three of these three mysterious former San Diegans are now back in Saudi Arabia, including Al-Bayoumi, who was recently reinterviewed by the FBI after demands were made by members of Congress, including Charles Schumer (D-NY) and several others. Among these three, only Al-Bayoumi has been reinvestigated.

Saad Al-Habeeb

He’s been called everything from a student to a wealthy international businessman. But during his weeklong visit to San Diego, Saad Al-Habeeb left his mark by purchasing a building in El Cajon with a $450,000 cashier’s check from Chase Manhattan Bank. The building was renamed the Masjid Al-Madina Al-Munawara, to be used as a mosque and community center for San Diego’s Kurd Muslims.

Al-Habeeb’s gift was given on the condition that another Saudi, a sociable but enigmatic man named Omar Al-Bayoumi —who also happened to be friends with the hijackers and was widely considered to be a Saudi government agent—be set up as the building’s maintenance manager. He also was to be given a private office at the mosque, with a phone and a computer.

A half-million-dollar cashier’s check from a mysterious Saudi who had connections to the terrorists and to the Saudi government would seem a glaring red flag, but FBI agents apparently have left this clue unchecked. Santee businessman Richard Fritzer, who sold the El Cajon building to Al-Habeeb, says he has never been contacted by anyone from the FBI.

“The mosque purchase was described to me as a charitable gift, but I never knew where the money came from or much about Al-Habeeb’s background,” says Fritzer. “I’d obviously like to know if this guy was involved in any way with terrorism. The FBI has never called me.”

The manager of La Mesa’s Grossmont Escrow, which handled the El Cajon mosque transaction, says the FBI never contacted her, either. “No one’s ever asked to look at our records,” says the manager, who requested her name not be used. “It’s somewhat surprising, considering what this was about.”

Erick Ricci, a local civil engineer who also worked on the mosque project, says he, too, has never heard from the feds. Ricci says all the money for his engineering work on the project was paid to him on behalf of Al-Habeeb and Al-Bayoumi by a San Diego contractor named Aziz Fathy, who is from Egypt. Ricci used to work with Fathy, he says, but adds now that he wonders about the nature of the relationship between the Saudis and Fathy, who would not return phone calls from San Diego Magazine.

Al-Habeeb, who is mentioned only briefly in the congressional 9/11 report and is back in Saudi Arabia now, has said he made Al-Bayoumi manager of the El Cajon mosque because he was a “good man.” But the true nature of his relationship with Al-Bayoumi—and their association with the terrorists and the Saudi government—remains a mystery.

MikeyBee
October 7, 2005, 01:59 PM
The poor sap who "wins" the presidency in 2008 is going to have his work cut out for him.Wow. Deja vu. I said the same thing (replace 2008 with 2000) in the summer of 2000 when I saw the economy begin to tank.

Poodleshooter
October 7, 2005, 03:38 PM
Killing a bunch of people who do not and never have directly and personally caused harm to others is always unjust. I don't see any logic in "collective punishment" or in imposing death sentences on large numbers of people based on what some percentage of those people claim to support.
Did you miss the part about the Saudi people supporting terrorism with their money and their lives (the 9/11 bombers were Saudis)?
How many citizens of a nation have to fight against us before you consider that a nation is fighting against us? All of them?
In your analogy, you have accused me of something I did not propose
I'm not proposing attacking people for their ideology, I'm proposing attacking them for attacking us. You don't need to hold a gun to attack someone. I reject your idea that only a direct attack warrants a response. An indirect support of those who kill is the same as those who kill directly.

It was morally wrong, though we may excuse our elders for mistakes made in the fog of war.
Sorry, but I'll never accept that Gordon. While your comments about the strategic bombing survey are correct, I won't yield the moral high ground to our enemies,nor will I condemn our nation for what it did in WWII. Our strategic bombing may have been ineffective, but it was morally justified.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 03:44 PM
One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml


Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say
By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times

Saturday 02 August 2003

WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.

One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

Said another official: "It's really damning. What it says is that not only Saudi entities or nationals are implicated in 9/11, but the [Saudi] government" as well.

Despite such a harsh assessment of the alleged role of the Riyadh government, those U.S.officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say congressional investigators found no specific evidence proving that top Saudi officials ? notably members of the royal family ? conspired in any purposeful way to fund the Sept. 11 plot or other acts of terrorism.

And they concede that senior leaders of the CIA, FBI, Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the U.S. counter-terrorism effort have begun to raise strenuous behind-the-scenes objections to some of the assertions made in the classified section of the report.

Some U.S. officials disagree sharply over whether key members of the Saudi royal family knowingly took action to support terrorist activity or simply showed a pattern of what one official called "willful ignorance."

The nearly 900-page report, released last week, concluded that a series of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence failures preceded the Sept. 11 attacks and that there was evidence of financial support for the hijackers by an unnamed foreign government. U.S. officials have confirmed that that government is Saudi Arabia, but nearly all the details supporting that claim are contained in the lengthy redacted section of the document.

On Friday, several dozen U.S. lawmakers joined in calling on the Bush administration to declassify the section several days after the Saudi Arabian government also called for its release.

Saudi officials have vehemently denied any wrongdoing, saying any allegations of links to the Sept. 11 attacks contained in the report are unsupported by the facts and are politically motivated. They also denied allegations in the report that they allowed Saudi charities and other groups to raise money for Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations within their borders.

Adel al-Jubeir, a chief Saudi spokesman, said in an interview that there were thousands of members of the royal family, and that while an internal government investigation had uncovered "wrongdoing by some," such lapses were certainly not part of any government conspiracy.

The report itself cautions that its findings are inconclusive and require further investigation.

"On the one hand, it is possible that these kinds of connections could suggest, as indicated in a CIA memorandum, 'incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists,' " one passage from the unclassified section states. "On the other hand, it is also possible that further investigation of these allegations could reveal legitimate, and innocent, explanations for these associations."

Several U.S. officials confirmed that the classified report detailed what the FBI has long since concluded: that there were far more financial links than have previously been disclosed between Riyadh and American-based Saudis who associated with the hijackers, and to a larger network of terrorists worldwide.

Those officials refused to discuss the classified sections of the report but confirmed that they detailed additional allegations about Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, two Saudi men, and their suspicious activities in the United States.

Al Bayoumi was an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority who FBI agents said received "seemingly unlimited funding" from Saudi Arabia. Bassnan and his family received significant charitable support from Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Al Bayoumi and Bassnan are believed to be in Saudi Arabia.

Federal law enforcement officials said they viewed both men with deep suspicion, particularly Al Bayoumi, and that the ties between the purported San Diego-based student and Saudi officials were more extensive than has been disclosed to date. The classified section cites federal authorities as saying they believed both men, each of whom has been linked to Al Qaeda operatives, could have been Saudi intelligence agents who reported back to government officials in Riyadh and acted as conduits for financial aid for the hijackers and other Saudi militants. Sources say the classified section concludes that Al Bayoumi received at least $3,000 a month from Saudi officials.

U.S. officials also said their investigators have become suspicious over the years about the activities of Saudi Arabia's top law enforcement officer, Interior Minister Prince Nayef ibn Abdulaziz, who has been a vocal supporter of radical Islamist causes and has stated publicly that Jews were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

There is significant evidence, they say, that Prince Nayef is one of several top Saudi officials who, through individual efforts and in their roles as government overseers, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to suspect charities and other front organizations that ultimately may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks and other terrorist strikes.

But some U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials criticized such assessments. "There is a lot of information in there that's inflammatory but not accurate, or inferential or open to interpretation," one official familiar with the classified section said. "Some of it is based on information that is partial, fragmentary and wrong. It is certainly not conclusive."

Other officials said they believed the evidence cited in the classified section was inconclusive about whether top Saudi officials intentionally helped finance terrorism or simply demonstrated what an official described in an interview as a "stunning" ability to look the other way as money flowed to terrorist activities around the globe.

"If you look at the links, you can't prosecute them for that. There's nothing direct," said one senior law enforcement official overseeing the U.S. effort to investigate Saudi terrorist financing. "If I were their defense attorney, I'd say that they had no direct knowledge. Whether they did have [such direct] knowledge, no one knows."

However one interprets the 27 pages, all who have read them agreed on one thing: If they are made public, they will prove extremely embarrassing not only to the Saudi government but also to the U.S. government, particularly to the FBI for missing so many clues pointing to Riyadh and for not aggressively investigating them, sources said.

"If this comes out, it will blow the top off the relations with [the Saudi] government because the American people will just be outraged," said one source familiar with the report.

"People don't know how much is in there and how specific it is," the source said. "The public hasn't gotten anywhere near the meat of it."

Many U.S. officials involved in the war on terrorism stressed that they were still actively investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, and that they had recently redoubled their efforts to trace terrorist financing in and out of Saudi Arabia, in part because of the cooperation of Saudi officials themselves. A delegation of senior authorities from the FBI, Treasury Department and National Security Council is set to travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Sunday. U.S. officials said the group will pursue new leads, even if they go to the top tiers of the royal family.

"We're going to track money in both directions, back to the operators and to the source of the donors and those who support terrorism, wherever that takes us," said one senior law enforcement official. "But completing the linkage between the Saudi [officials] and where the money ends up, that's what we're doing but it's going to be really difficult."

The officials will be bringing with them a list of suspected Saudi financiers of terrorism and will ask the Saudis to interrogate them and shut down certain businesses that they believe are being used as conduits.

They will also pressure Saudi leaders on why they haven't cracked down on many of the charities whose ties to terrorism ? and to top Saudi officials ? are detailed in the classified pages, according to several U.S. officials familiar with the trip.

Of particular concern, the U.S. officials said, were recent indications that the largest Saudi-based charity, the Al Haramain Charitable Foundation, continued to operate even though they had repeatedly pressed Saudi leaders to shut it down.

Saudi officials, who have extensive ties to Al Haramain, did order the closure of the massive charity's many overseas operations late last year as part of a series of promised reforms aimed at cracking down on terrorist financing. One senior U.S. official said the Saudis only did so after a U.S. delegation to Riyadh presented them with reams of "jaw-dropping" information about how Al Haramain's offices worldwide had been corrupted by Al Qaeda operatives.

Since that visit, the official said, Saudi leaders have reneged on virtually all of the promised reforms. Al-Jubeir, the Saudi spokesman, said such reforms were underway but that "they take time to implement fully."

Meanwhile, U.S. authorities said they would continue to investigate the other main charities cited in the congressional report as being conduits for terrorism, including the Muslim World League, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the International Islamic Relief Organization.

U.S. officials say top members of the Saudi royal family are involved in the oversight or operation of nearly all of those charities, and that they have refused to audit their books or question their activities despite repeated protests from Washington.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, said in an interview that ample evidence remained "that high-ranking Saudi officials and members of the Saudi royal family are involved in supporting Saudi organizations that have a dual purpose ? legitimate charitable work, but which also appear to be conduits to terrorist organizations."

"There has been no indication to me that they have seriously cracked down on or audited these charities that are under suspicion," said Collins, whose committee is investigating Saudi financing of terrorism. "I'm thinking of the phrase 'deliberate ignorance,' " Collins said of the Saudi leaders. "They don't want to know, they're not probing, they're not taking action that would uncover where the financing goes. I think they have knowledge at some level, that they intentionally are not seeking that information."

Derek Zeanah
October 7, 2005, 03:45 PM
Sorry, but I'll never accept that Gordon. While your comments about the strategic bombing survey are correct, I won't yield the moral high ground to our enemies,nor will I condemn our nation for what it did in WWII. Our strategic bombing may have been ineffective, but it was morally justified.Sure, because fire-bombing or nuking hundreds of thousands of toddlers is always morally justified if the United States does it, because we're always a just nation. Even when we do the same thing to folks in Texas.

Wrong is wrong. Deliberately killing toddlers and infants is wrong. You're welcome to justify it any way you want, but that's not the moral high ground. It may have been a better choice than the alternative, but that's a "lesser evil" choice -- not the moral choice.

shootinstudent
October 7, 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm not proposing attacking people for their ideology, I'm proposing attacking them for attacking us. You don't need to hold a gun to attack someone. I reject your idea that only a direct attack warrants a response. An indirect support of those who kill is the same as those who kill directly.

That is exactly what I am responding to. Above, you also said: My only caveat at this point would be that it's difficult to definitively prove your premise that a majority of the Saudi people support terrorism or war against us. Should that ever be made known as an objective fact, I would have no problem going to war against their citizenry.

Here's the problem: If they are not directly involved in terrorism (and clearly the majority are not carrying arms or making bombs), then what are the grounds for killing them? What do you mean by "indirect support"? If you mean believing or saying "terror attacks are Okay", then you support killing people for their beliefs. It does not matter how wrongheaded or evil those beliefs are, you are supporting killing for belief alone.

Now let's add to that the fact that it's a percentage of the society. If 70 percent of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism, that leaves 30 percent of about 26 million people who don't. That leaves just shy of 8 million people that you're willing to kill in order to punish the other 70 percent for supporting violence that less than 1 percent are actively involved in committing. "Instant sunshine" means murdering civillians, and it is no better than what the terrorists are doing.

Imagine someone in Iraq following this logic:

"Some Americans have abused Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. Most Americans support the army that did this, and do not think Abu Ghraib was a big deal. One American congressman has even talked about nuking our holiest city, Mecca. Therefore, most Americans support indirectly the abuse of Iraqis and all muslims."

Would that reasoning justify bombing new york? How's it any different from the process of reasoning that you're using to justify attacks on Saudi civillians?

Edited to add:

Well, someone here is much, much better at being concise than I, and has exactly the point I'd like to support: Wrong is wrong. Deliberately killing toddlers and infants is wrong.

wingnutx
October 7, 2005, 04:24 PM
Iraq was the low-hanging fruit. Don't think our efforts will stop there.

Poodleshooter
October 7, 2005, 04:59 PM
Sure, because fire-bombing or nuking hundreds of thousands of toddlers is always morally justified if the United States does it, because we're always a just nation. Even when we do the same thing to folks in Texas.

Wrong is wrong. Deliberately killing toddlers and infants is wrong. You're welcome to justify it any way you want, but that's not the moral high ground. It may have been a better choice than the alternative, but that's a "lesser evil" choice -- not the moral choice.
The only moral choice made in war is the choice of first physical aggression. That is the immoral choice (which Saudi citizens made on 9/11). Any response to that is simply survival. To pit survival against morality and judge those who act for their own preservation borders on immoral itself. How would failure to retaliate to the utmost for the preservation of one's own nation (faith,family or person for that matter) be an immoral choice in the face of another's physical aggression? I don't think all out war was an immoral choice against the nazis or imperial Japan, and I don't think it is an immoral against those societies whose members attack our citizens directly or by proxies that they finance and give tangible support to.

Honestly, if any government could bring charges that we had initiated violence against them, I would find some sympathy for their decision to defend themselves. However when a country's citizens attack us because they feel that our economic or political system is reducing the faith of their followers or undermining their culture, I don't feel that that is at all justified.

Gordon Fink
October 7, 2005, 05:03 PM
While your comments about the strategic bombing survey are correct, I won’t yield the moral high ground to our enemies,nor will I condemn our nation for what it did in WWII. Our strategic bombing may have been ineffective, but it was morally justified.

You will notice I didn’t condemn Allied action during the Second World War. As I said, strategic bombing was a mistake made during a desperate time and is thus excusable for the most part. It was an untried military theory and raised concerns about morality even before the war. Afterwards, it was recognized as wrong both morally and militarily. In this case, the ends did not justify the means.

The comparison here is destroying Mecca and Medina or otherwise launching a general attack against all Arabs/Muslims. In addition to being morally wrong, such an action would probably fail strategically as well. Also, we shouldn’t forget that a general war between Islam and the West is exactly what al Qaida is trying to start.

~G. Fink

Poodleshooter
October 7, 2005, 05:18 PM
Here's the problem: If they are not directly involved in terrorism (and clearly the majority are not carrying arms or making bombs), then what are the grounds for killing them? What do you mean by "indirect support"? If you mean believing or saying "terror attacks are Okay", then you support killing people for their beliefs. It does not matter how wrongheaded or evil those beliefs are, you are supporting killing for belief alone. I'll clarify indirect support: financial support for those who participate in bombings or other first strike aggression. There's been plenty of documentation of that happening in SA and also in Iraq.

Now let's add to that the fact that it's a percentage of the society. If 70 percent of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism, that leaves 30 percent of about 26 million people who don't. That leaves just shy of 8 million people that you're willing to kill in order to punish the other 70 percent for supporting violence that less than 1 percent are actively involved in committing. "Instant sunshine" means murdering civillians, and it is no better than what the terrorists are doing.
If you can't support the concept of at least some degree of group culpability, than you remove all social responsibility from individuals to control their fellow citizens actions,and you remove the moral validity of any warmaking of any kind, leaving only targeted assassinations as morally valid. I can't buy that.

Imagine someone in Iraq following this logic:

"Some Americans have abused Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. Most Americans support the army that did this, and do not think Abu Ghraib was a big deal. One American congressman has even talked about nuking our holiest city, Mecca. Therefore, most Americans support indirectly the abuse of Iraqis and all muslims."

Would that reasoning justify bombing new york? How's it any different from the process of reasoning that you're using to justify attacks on Saudi civillians?
Since the question of who struck first regarding Iraq is a bit sketchy, I'll have to default to my "first aggressor principle". Did Iraq attack us, or plot to attack us first, or did we actually preemptively attack with insufficient aggression against us. It's not as clear as it is with the Saudis.

Deliberately killing toddlers and infants is wrong. It is wrong. We agree on that. What we don't agree on is who shoulders the moral responsibility falls on. I say that when it's part of "collateral damage" as a result of bombing the citizens who support terror with their finances, donations,volunteer time,etc. it falls on the shoulders of those who began the aggression.
The culpable party at Dresden was not the Allies, but the Axis powers for beginning the aggression.

longeyes
October 7, 2005, 05:21 PM
When people believe in individualism, treat them as individuals; when they believe in groupthink, treat them as a group. Leave it up to them how they will be dealt with.

Which culture is it that is toying with the idea of genocide?

Poodleshooter
October 7, 2005, 05:23 PM
Also, we shouldn’t forget that a general war between Islam and the West is exactly what al Qaida is trying to start.
Oddly enough, that's not a war they can win if we look at all of the numbers on paper. The reason they persist is that for some reason they don't seem to know that they can't win. They think that their superior will to win somehow trumps our technological advantage. Then again, maybe they're right....

Biker
October 7, 2005, 05:27 PM
I think, more importantly perhaps, that they're quite willing and eager to die for their cause. That makes for a truly dangerous opponant.
Biker

Derek Zeanah
October 7, 2005, 05:34 PM
The only moral choice made in war is the choice of first physical aggression.So, raping and pillaging after the other country started it is OK? Collecting civilians in conquored territory and summarily executing them is OK? Torturing enemy POWs to death is ok, and involves no moral choices?

Every act is potentially a moral act -- no action that another takes against you removes any moral burden your own actions might incur.

It's frightening that you think otherwise.

That is the immoral choice (which Saudi citizens made on 9/11).That it looks like fifteen Saudis made.

Any response to that is simply survival.I can burn down your entire apartment complex because two people who live there raped my sister last night.

Doesn't fly, dude. You can't hold them accountable morally, just like the Jihadis are wrong if they try to hold poor black sharecroppers personally culpable for the actions of this administration, even if they voted against them.

To pit survival against morality and judge those who act for their own preservation borders on immoral itself.So, those butchers in Iraq who were minding their own business and responding to force appropriately (even though the force may have been political rather than physical), incurring no moral penalty (they didn't force that guy to publish that -- he did, they just responded), are morally justified in resisting the US occupation, right? Survival and acting in the interest of their own preservation.

I don't think all out war was an immoral choice against the nazis or imperial Japan,Right. Condemning toddlers to horrible fiery deaths is perfectly OK with you provided they had the misfortune to be born on the wrong piece of land.

I think we all see where your "morals" fall.

and I don't think it is an immoral against those societies whose members attack our citizens directly or by proxies that they finance and give tangible support to.Lemms see if I can sum this up properly. The Saudis gain control of Saudi Arabia with the help of the western nations.
Over decades they slowly destroy the middle class of their country, and force their countrymen to enture the worst sorts of tyrrany imaginable.
Citizens wanting to eliminate the tyrrany are confronted with F16's bought from the United States, along with the rest of the arsenals.
The US is aware of the problem, but sees no problem with tyrrany provided the tyrant works with our global interests.
In an effort to maintain power, the Saudi Royal Family (all thousands of them) start to support the idea of radical islamic training in the nation's schools and mosques. They support the Jihadis so the Jihadis will put off regime change a little bit longer.
The Jihadis, along with bits of the Saudi Government, contribute to 9/11.Because of all this, those disaffected citizens living under a tyrant we created and support, now must all die.

Dude, I don't agree at all.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 05:36 PM
Copied from previous posts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain565782.shtml



WASHINGTON, July 29, 2003
Bush: 9/11 Report Restricted

(CBS/AP) President Bush refused on Tuesday to release a congressional report alleging possible links between Saudi Arabian officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers. The White House sought to question a Saudi citizen who befriended two of the hijackers.

The information is widely believed to center on Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers. Saudi Arabia has vehemently denied supporting the hijackers.

Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.

Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.

The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.




5. The Saudis are connected to al-Qaeda: In his book, Why America Slept, author Gerald Posner quotes U.S. officials as saying a key al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Abu Zubaydah, told his interrogators that al-Qaeda had an explicit deal with the Saudi royals to desist from violence in the kingdom in exchange for Saudi financing. [Source: Time Magazine, September 15, 2003]




Saudi Arabia is still the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Spreading the Wahhabi Cult across the Muslim world (including many Muslims in America) and teaching hate and intolerance, even of non-Wahhabi Muslims.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml

Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say
By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times

Saturday 02 August 2003

WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.

One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

Said another official: "It's really damning. What it says is that not only Saudi entities or nationals are implicated in 9/11, but the [Saudi] government" as well.


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/artic...RTICLE_ID=33482

Saudi royals funding Palestinian jihad
Riyadh reportedly has spent more than $4 billion on intifada

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 9, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The royal family of Saudi Arabia donated more than $4 billion to the Palestinians between 1998 and 2003 to help finance offensive terrorist operations against Israel, a new report says.

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Washington, D.C-based group that monitors Mideast media, the House of Saud's support has gone to "'Mujahideen fighters' and 'families of martyrs'" killed in operations against the Jewish state.




http://users.rcn.com/rahmercl/CIPAC/Weiner-Ferguson.htm

SUPPORT THE WEINER-FERGUSON AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT AID TO SAUDI ARABIA


Dear Colleague:


Despite efforts to persuade us otherwise, the Saudis have not been a true ally in the war on terror. They have stymied our terror investigations, provided financial support to terrorists, and bankrolled fanatical Wahhabism. That's why last year a majority of you supported an amendment to strike funding for the Saudis in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. This year we are asking for your support again.


1. The vast majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis: 70% percent of suicide bombers named on Islamic extremist websites are Saudi, according to experts. And 61% of Arab martyrs in Iraq are Saudi. As recently as May 28, 2005, Syria arrested 300 Saudis trying to cross into Iraq to join the jihad against the U.S. [Source: Washington Post, "Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis; Web Sites Track Suicide Bombings," May 15, 2005; Arab News "Syria Arrests 300 Saudis, May 28, 2005]


2. Saudi efforts to prosecute terrorists are inept: The Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote: "We find it regrettable and unacceptable that since September 11, 2001, we know of not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups who has been publicly punished-despite Ambassador Bandar's assertion, in response to the issuance of our first report, that Saudi Arabia would 'prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the law.'" [Source: Council on Foreign Relations, "Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing," pg. 20, June 2004)


3. The Saudis finance terror groups: More than 50% of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia, which has funneled over $4 billion to finance Palestinian terror since 2000. (Source: Ambassador Dore Gold's testimony to the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, July 21, 2003)


4. The Saudis thwart American anti-terror efforts: The Saudis have denied U.S. officials access to several suspects in custody, including a Saudi in detention for months who had knowledge of extensive plans to inject poison gas in the New York City subway system. [Source: Time Magazine, September 15, 2003]


5. The Saudis are connected to al-Qaeda: In his book, Why America Slept, author Gerald Posner quotes U.S. officials as saying a key al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, Abu Zubaydah, told his interrogators that al-Qaeda had an explicit deal with the Saudi royals to desist from violence in the kingdom in exchange for Saudi financing. [Source: Time Magazine, September 15, 2003]


Our amendment would prohibit U.S. aid to the Saudis. Please contact Daniel Greenspahn in Mr. Weiner's office (5-6616) or Amanda Tharpe in Mr. Ferguson's office (5-5361) with any questions or concerns.


Sincerely,

ANTHONY D. WEINER MICHAEL FERGUSON




http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/list.htm

Saudi Arabia: Number 1 Terrorist State
Appeasement of Saudi Arabia even in the aftermath of September 11 is absurd and borders on treason. It does nothing to help the Moslem world come out of its state of deep denial for the responsibility for the worst terrorist outrage of all time. This denial is as irrational as the culture and religion that caused it. The real winner of Western appeasement has been Osama bin Laden and like-minded religious fanatics. Brezhinski's "excellent idea" (going back to President Carter) of using fundamentalist Islam to fight Soviet Communism has backfired by failing to grasp Islam's inherent link with violence and intolerance. The US helped create bin Laden then ignored the problem in order to appease Saudi Arabia.

Jonathan Pollard tried to warn both the US and Israel of what was going on and got "nailed to the cross" for treason. Turns out he wasn't the one selling out US Intelligence, the real culprits were a pair of WASP's nailed in the 1990's, not a Jew. But the fact he was a Jew was a ready excuse to silence a fair inquiry. Threatening Americans has become a worthy goal for Ashcroft and Bush.

Saudi Arabia is still the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Spreading the Wahhabi Cult across the Muslim world (including many Muslims in America) and teaching hate and intolerance, even of non-Wahhabi Muslims. The hate being taught in schools and mosques must be ended. The American "crack whore" addiction to cheap oil must end or we will continue to sell-out everything we stand for just to get the next fix. $3 a gallon for gas is cheaper then the next September 11.




AFTER 9/11 - CLASSIFYING INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE: In 2003, more and more evidence began to appear tying the Saudi royal family to the attacks. For instance, Newsweek reported that thousands of dollars in charitable gifts from Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, "ended up in the hands of two of the September 11 hijackers." Yet, as congressional committees prepared to release a bipartisan report on the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration swiftly moved to classify a section of the report which dealt with the Saudi ties to the attack. According to CBS News, that section "examined interactions between Saudi businessmen and the royal family that may have intentionally or unwittingly aided al Qaeda or the suicide hijackers." Not surprisingly, months after 9/11 Vice President Cheney went on Fox News to announce the Administration's full opposition to an independent 9/11 commission.

AFTER 9/11 - STILL PRAISING THE SAUDIS WHILE THEY REFUSE TO COOPERATE: President Bush has simultaneously repeated a mantra that "if you aid a terrorist, if you hide terrorists, you're just as guilty as the terrorists" while also going "out of his way to compliment the Saudis." While the President says the Saudis are an "important friend" to the United States, the royal family "refuses to permit United States investigators to interrogate one of bin Laden's key financial aides-Sidi Tayyib" a man who "probably knows as much as anyone else about bin Laden's intricate financial empire." Meanwhile, officials at the Treasury and Justice departments have privately expressed deep frustration over the failure of the Saudi government to impose stricter controls over their Islamic charities and turn over crucial evidence about the murky flow of money to Al Qaeda.



http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm

SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY

Loretta Napoleoni

Late in the day, on September 11, 2001, when the news broke that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, the White House and the Saudi Embassy were already engaged in collateral damage control. Throughout September, George W. Bush appeared in public accompanied by the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and by several other distinguished Muslim and Arab-American friends, who had generously contributed to his presidential campaign. Paradoxically, most of them had links with radical Islamist groups. On September 14, in a display of solidarity for Bush’s “war on terror”, Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, was photographed at the White House with the President and 15 other prominent American Muslims. A year earlier, Siddiqi had addressed a pro-Hezbollah crowd in Washington, predicting that the wrath of God would soon land on American soil. In the same picture, sandwiched between Siddiqi and Bush, was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who, on the afternoon of 9/11, had stated on a Los Angeles public radio station that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list" for the terrorist attacks. On September 17, during his historic visit to the Islamic Center in Washington, the President was filmed with Khaled Saffuri, former deputy director of the American Muslim Council, a radical Islamic institution, whose director, Abduraman Alamoudi, had publicly supported Hamas and Hezbollah.

As investigations were carried out across the world, the Saudi connection with Islamist terror kept re-surfacing and the White House began to struggle pretending that the Kingdom was a loyal ally. A new reality emerged: Saudi Arabian involvement in terrorism was by no mean limited to Osama bin Laden and his entourage. Beyond the 15 Saudi hijackers stood not an isolated group, Al Qaeda, but rather a global financial network. Americans learned that, for decades, Islamic banks had funneled Saudi charities’ money, via subsidiaries and corresponding banks, to terror groups and cells scattered across the world. Businessman, traders, bankers, individuals, even members of the Saudi Royal family, had contributed, in one-way or another, to this pool of money. Prince Bandar’s own wife, a personal friend of the Bush family and the Saudi King’s daughter, was caught in this web when the media unveiled that some of her personal charitable donations had ended up in the pockets of two 9/11 hijackers.

Against this extraordinary background, the US has not taken any serious measure against Saudi Arabia. After the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the second chapter of Bush and Blair’s ‘war on terror’ unfolded north of Saudi Arabia, inside Iraq, where a controversial war was fought against Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime. Why did coalition forces not hunt down those who have been funding terrorism? Why did the White House censor the sections referring to Saudi financing of the Congressional Report on 9/11? Because of a shocking paradox: for the last 25 years, the US government has been in bed with Saudi Arabia, the hot bed of Wahhabism, the root of Islamist terror.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 05:37 PM
Saudi Arabia's Links to Terrorism
A briefing by Laurent Murawiec
November 19, 2002


Once upon a time, there were solid grounds for a partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia. After World War II, the kingdom's vast oil reserves and willingness to use its production capacity to ensure moderate and stable world oil prices were rightly judged to be vital to American national security. In return for these strategic assets, the United States pledged to protect the kingdom's oil supplies and obstruct those who would seek to control them, particularly the Soviet Union. Thus, when FDR met with King Abdulaziz bin Saud in 1945, a marriage of convenience was born. But the original reasons for this marriage of convenience have long since faded away. It is time for a divorce.


The Saudi Royal Family
Since it established control over the Arabia peninsula in the 1920s, the Saudi royal family has claimed to be the guardian of Islam's two holiest sites – Mecca and Medina – and prides itself on upholding the "purest" form of Islam, known as Wahhabism. Wahhabism dates back to a pact between eighteenth century Arabian zealot Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and a desert brigand named Ibn Saud, which enshrined an alliance through marriage that produced the Saudi royal family. Until the late 1970s, Wahhabism was an extreme sect that happened to rule Saudi Arabia, but did not bother too many outside the kingdom's borders. To counter the proliferation of anti-Saudi Iranian propaganda, however, the Saudis decided to spread Wahhabi teachings abroad. The royal family's oil wealth poured into countries throughout the Islamic world, from West Africa to Indonesia, fueling a proliferation of madrasas (religious schools) that indoctrinated a new generation of Islamists. Even in the United States, Muslim children studied Islamic primers shipped from Wahhabi institutes in Saudi Arabia.

The Monster they Created
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 provided the kingdom with an ideal opportunity to sponsor a bona fide holy war that would showcase Wahhabi ideals and quiet Iranian-inspired Islamist opposition to the monarchy. Madrasas around the Arab and Islamic world produced shock troops for this jihad. After the Russians were driven out of Afghanistan, these "Arab Afghans" began trickling home and looked for other jihads. The Saudis had created a monster; to be sure they did not wreak havoc inside the kingdom, bin Laden and other Saudi Islamists were encouraged to wage holy war abroad. When the Clinton administration cornered Osama bin Laden in the Sudan in 1998, the Saudis refused to allow his extradition back home, where he could be neutralized. Instead, the Saudi intelligence chief – Prince Turki – reportedly offered bin Laden $200 million to go to Afghanistan, on the condition that he not target the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden honored his promise – there has not been a single attack by Al-Qaeda against the Al-Saud family. Inside the kingdom, Al-Qaeda has only operated against the Americans and the British. Over time, the understanding became that bin Laden would leave the Saudis alone only if they allowed the network of charities funding Al-Qaeda to operate unhindered. On the day after the September 11 attacks, the first thing Riyadh did was evacuate two dozen members of the bin Laden family residing in the US on the private jet of its ambassador, Prince Bandar.

Conclusion
With the end of the Cold War, the most persuasive reasons for maintaining the marriage of convenience with Saudi Arabia disappeared. With the September 11 attacks, the returns on this partnership went from zero to negative. The Saudis have become the friends of our enemies and the enemies of our friends. Bin Laden is an extension of Saudi foreign policy. To be fair, the Saudis don't quite know how to deal with the monster they've created – so far they've avoided tough choices. As long as the benefits of sponsoring terror are enormous and the costs of sponsoring terror are negligible, they will not take decisive action. The US must therefore make the costs of funding Wahhabi extremism terribly high, while making the benefits slim pickings.







http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm


SAUDI ARABIA'S DUBIOUS DENIALS OF
INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Dore Gold

Saudi Arabia's past involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. While the Bush administration decided to redact 28 sensitive pages of the Joint Intelligence Report of the U.S. Congress, nonetheless, Saudi involvement in terrorist financing can be documented through materials captured by Israel in Palestinian headquarters in 2002-3. In light of this evidence, Saudi denials about terrorist funding don't hold water.

Israel retrieved a document of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which detailed the allocation of $280,000 to 14 Hamas charities. IIRO and other suspected global Saudi charities are not NGOs, since their boards of directors are headed by Saudi cabinet members. Prince Salman, a full brother of King Fahd, controls IIRO distributions "with an iron hand," according to former CIA operative Robert Baer. Mahmoud Abbas, in fact, complained, in a handwritten December 2000 letter to Salman, about Saudi funding of Hamas. Defense Minister Prince Sultan has been cited as a major IIRO contributor.

It was hoped, after the May 12 triple bombing attack in Riyadh, that Saudi Arabia might halt its support for terrorism. Internally, the Saudi security forces moved against al-Qaeda cells all over the kingdom. But externally, the Saudis were still engaged in terrorist financing, underwriting 60-70 percent of the Hamas budget, in violation of their "roadmap" commitments to President Bush.

Additionally, the Saudis back the civilian infrastructure of Hamas with extremist textbooks glorifying jihad and martyrdom that are used by schools and Islamic societies throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ideological infiltration of Palestinian society by the Saudis in this way is reminiscent of their involvement in the madrassa system of Pakistan during the 1980s, that gave birth to the Taliban and other pro bin-Laden groups.



Saudi Arabia Provided the Ideological Backdrop for 9/11
Two years ago on September 11, 2001, most well-informed observers of the Middle East were shocked to hear that 15 out of the 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were Saudi citizens. It was equally surprising that the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on the United States in its history, Osama bin Laden, was born and raised in Saudi Arabia. This curiosity and wonder about the Saudi role in the attack came up once more with the release of the September 11 Joint Intelligence Report by the U.S. Congress and its disclosure of what the U.S. press called "incontrovertible evidence" linking Saudis to the financing of al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.

For decades, terrorism had been associated with states like Libya, Syria, or Iran. Saudi Arabia had been a pro-Western force during the Cold War and had hosted large coalition armies during the 1991 Gulf War. Saudi Arabia had not been colonized during its history, like other Middle Eastern states that had endured a legacy of European imperialism. This background only sharpened the questions of many after the attacks: What was the precise source of the hatred that drove these men to take their own lives in an act of mass murder? The Saudis were initially in a state of denial about their connection to September 11; Interior Minister Prince Naif even tried to pin the blame for the attacks on Israel, saying it was impossible that Saudi youth could have been involved.1

Yet over time it became clearer how Saudi Arabia could have provided the ideological backdrop that spawned al-Qaeda's attack on the United States. In a series of articles appearing in the Egyptian weekly, Ruz al-Yousef (the Newsweek of Egypt), this past May, Wael al-Abrashi, the magazine's deputy editor, attempted to grapple with this issue. He drew a direct link between the rise of much of contemporary terrorism and Saudi Arabia's main Islamic creed, Wahhabism, and the financial involvement of Saudi Arabia's large charitable organizations:

Wahhabism leads, as we have seen, to the birth of extremist, closed, and fanatical streams, that accuse others of heresy, abolish them, and destroy them. The extremist religious groups have moved from the stage of Takfir [condemning other Muslims as unbelievers] to the stage of "annihilation and destruction," in accordance with the strategy of Al-Qa'ida - which Saudi authorities must admit is a local Saudi organization that drew other organizations into it, and not the other way around. All the organizations emerged from under the robe of Wahhabism.

I can state with certainly that after a very careful reading of all the documents and texts of the official investigations linked to all acts of terror that have taken place in Egypt, from the assassination of the late president Anwar Sadat in October 1981, up to the Luxor massacre in 1997, Saudi Arabia was the main station through which most of the Egyptian extremists passed, and emerged bearing with them terrorist thought regarding Takfir - thought that they drew from the sheikhs of Wahhabism. They also bore with them funds they received from the Saudi charities.2

Thus, while some Western commentators have sought to explain the roots of al-Qaeda's fury at the U.S. by focusing on the history of American policy in the Middle East or other external factors, a growing number of Middle Eastern analysts have concentrated instead on internal Saudi factors, including recent militant trends among Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi clerics and the role of large Saudi global charities in terrorist financing. This requires a careful look at how Saudi Arabia contributed to the ideological roots of some of the new wave of international terrorism as well as how the kingdom emerged as a critical factor in providing the resources needed by many terrorist groups.





http://arabist.net/archives/2005/01/25/pick-your-jihad/

quote:Fundamentalist Islamic leaders in Saudi Arabia are telling militants intent on fighting “infidels” to join the insurgency in Iraq instead of taking up Osama bin Laden’s call to oust the Saudi royal family at home, say Saudi dissidents who monitor theological edicts coming out of the kingdom.///
“To them, Iraq is the answer to their dilemma.”


The Arabist NetworkTuesday 25 January 2005
Pick your jihad

The AP has a story, seemingly mostly sourced from Saudi dissidents based in London, on how Saudi clerics in “the Kingdom” are encouraging wannabe mujahideen to fight in Iraq rather than at home. In other words, they are encouraging a split between Al Qaeda, which calls for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, and local Islamists who may be more interested in the issue of jihad in the Arab world at large. One might find it rather odd that the transnational group is calling for internal action while domestic players are trying to export the violence to Iraq — until you remember that much of the Saudi establishment is actually broadly sympathetic to Al Qaeda’s ideals, even if they don’t want them applied at home.

LONDON - Fundamentalist Islamic leaders in Saudi Arabia are telling militants intent on fighting “infidels” to join the insurgency in Iraq instead of taking up Osama bin Laden’s call to oust the Saudi royal family at home, say Saudi dissidents who monitor theological edicts coming out of the kingdom.
Iraq as a battleground offers the solution to a quandary facing the Saudi clerics who have to both placate the kingdom’s rulers and keep their radical base happy.
“If they preach that there ought to be absolutely no jihad, they would lose credibility and support among their followers. So what they do is preach jihad — not in Saudi Arabia, but in Iraq,” said Abdul-Aziz Khamis, a Saudi human rights activist in London.
“To them, Iraq is the answer to their dilemma.”
[snip]
Following another series of attacks last May, several Saudi clerics promised the government not to wage jihad, or holy war, inside Saudi Arabia and to refrain from recruiting activists from the Jihadis group, say Saudi dissidents. Two of them, Salman al-Odeh and Safar al-Hawali, even agreed to fight the Jihadis, although they agree with their ideas, said Khamis.
“Al-Hawali and al-Salman still believe in the principles of jihad. But now they link it with the authority of the ruler,” said Khamis. “Al-Hawali finances and supports people who go to Iraq to fight there, but he is against fighting on Saudi soil.”
[snip]
Saudi clerics such as Al-Odeh and al-Hawali have issued several fatwas saying jihad is legitimate in Iraq. Al-Hawali also opposes beheading foreign hostages for political reasons, even though he supports it from a religious point of view, said Khamis. Al-Odeh was among 26 clerics who called for jihad in Iraq last year.
Saleh al-Owfi, believed to be al-Qaida’s leader in Saudi Arabia, claimed in a Web site statement that al-Hawali had asked him not to fight at home but to go to Iraq, and that he would arrange for him to go there, says Khamis. But al-Owfi replied that everyone should fight on his own turf.
Driving those fundamentalist clerics who are in their pockets against the Al Qaeda sympathisers may work to divert energy away from the movement against the Sauds, but it’s not exactly the actions of an ally, is it?

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 05:38 PM
WASHINGTON — A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States and recommended U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and financial assets invested in America.





http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=v...2&language_id=1

''Uncertainty in Saudi Arabia''


For the last several months, factions within Washington's intellectual and foreign policy circles have been calling for the reevaluation of the United States' relationship with the desert monarchy. Many opine that the negative aspects of the existing regime (the Kingdom's perceived complicity with terrorists, social repression) now outweigh the positive ones (Saudi Arabia contains the largest quantities of the most crucial resource on the planet).

Usually, most critics begin with the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the September 11th attacks were Saudi nationals. They then point to a political system (or lack thereof) and society that most Westerners find a bit repressive if not backward and wholly unacceptable -- one which nurtures and exports terrorism. When combined with the geopolitical significance of Saudi oil reserves, the country becomes one which Washington can't help but exert a certain amount of control over and, if need be, critics maintain, its desires for the Kingdom can legitimately be realized through force or "regime change."

In July 2002, during a briefing given to the Defense Advisory Board, a group that advises the Pentagon, an analyst with the Rand Corporation, Laurent Murawiec, depicted Saudi Arabia as a terrorist state that should be considered an enemy of the United States.

Murawiec said, "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader. Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies [and is responsible for a] daily outpouring of virulent hatred against the U.S. from Saudi media, 'educational' institutions, clerics, officials -- Saudis tell us one thing in private, do the contrary in reality."

Towards the end of the presentation he added: "There is an 'Arabia,' but it needs not be 'Saudi.'" A brief list is also given, outlining interests Washington could target in order to pressure Riyadh: oil, economic security, The Holy Places.





http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/

FBI probes possible Saudi, 9/11 money ties
Saturday, November 23, 2002 Posted: 7:37 PM EST (0037 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI is investigating whether the Saudi Arabian government funneled money to associates of two of the September 11 hijackers, a senior White House official told CNN Saturday.

Findings from an inquiry by the House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee suggest evidence indicates money from the Saudi Arabian government could have made its way to the two hijackers through two Saudi students when they were in California.

There is some evidence that the students received a payment through the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, according to the inquiry.

But sources said there is no conclusive evidence the Saudi government intentionally funded terror activities against the United States. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The Saudi government has condemned their actions.

A U.S. government official said it is not unusual for wealthy Saudi families to send money to less affluent Saudi students. In addition, the official said, that money often is sent through the Saudi Embassy.

Adel Al-Jubeir, a foreign policy adviser to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told CNN that Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is "a very generous woman" who supports many charitable causes.

The princess, however, never sent any money directly to the two hijackers, Al-Jubeir said. An investigation by her office has found the princess sent money to a woman on her charity recipient list and that woman then sent the money to the students.

Al-Faisal does not know who the woman is or why she was on her list, Al-Jubeir said.

"The FBI investigated this matter six months ago [and] the embassy cooperated with them fully," Al-Jubeir said.

He compared the embassy's situation to that of any U.S. bank in which the hijackers might have had an account. The bank, he said, would be no more guilty of aiding the hijackers than is the Saudi embassy.

Congress is preparing a report that suggests the FBI did not aggressively pursue leads concerning the Saudi government and terrorism.

Officials have denied the charge but said they will not comment on details of any ongoing investigation. The FBI issued a statement saying the two Saudi students who, according to sources, received money from the princess were charged with visa fraud. Sources said they are both currently in Saudi Arabia.

"Six months later, what we find surprising is that in Congress, these charges come out," said Al-Jubeir. "We read about it in the media, which leads me to believe that there's a lot of political play here that may not be in line with the facts as we know them, as the FBI knows them, or the facts as Princess Haifa's office has determined."

White House officials traveling with President Bush in Europe acknowledged the FBI and CIA were opposed to making public what they consider highly sensitive information in the case. The officials also said that it would be improper to release information now because of the ongoing FBI investigation.

Al-Jubeir stressed that Saudi Arabia continues to "mercilessly" pursue al Qaeda members and other terrorists.

"It shouldn't be surprising that the president and the secretary of state and all of your senior officials consistently, and on the record, have stated that Saudi Arabia has been most cooperative in this effort," he said.

"The last thing we would do is fund people who would murder us."

Report: Hijackers were befriended
A report in Newsweek magazine provides more details.

Michael Isikoff, who wrote the article, said on CNN's "NewsNight" that one of the students helped the hijackers get an apartment, paid their rent and introduced them around the Muslim community in San Diego, California.

Law enforcement sources told Newsweek the FBI has uncovered financial records showing that the family of Omar Al Bayoumi, a student in San Diego, began receiving payments amounting to about $3,500 a month in early 2000.

According to Newsweek's sources, the money came from an account at Riggs Bank in Washington in Princess Haifa Al-Faisal's name. She is the daughter of the late King Faisal.

After Al Bayoumi left the United States in July 2001, similar payments were being made to another San Diego student, Osama Basnan, Newsweek reported.

According to the magazine's report, Al Bayoumi and Basnan befriended two men who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon -- Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi.

Isikoff said the timing of the Riggs Bank payments, which began just a couple months after they arrived in the United States, has raised questions about whether Saudi government money found its way to the two hijackers.

"There has been no explanation for why such a high-ranking official, or the wife of such a high-ranking official, would route money to a seeming nobody in San Diego," he said.

However, the magazine said it is unclear whether any of the money transferred through the Riggs account ever reached the hijackers.

-- Senior White House Correspondent John King contributed to this report.







http://www.arableaders.net/Arableaders-5/2.htm


Saudi Arabia enemy of America: Report
Part of `terror chain,' says briefing to Pentagon advisers

By Thomas E. Ricks
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

WASHINGTON — A briefing given last month to a top Pentagon advisory board described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States and recommended U.S. officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and financial assets invested in America.
"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing, presented July 10 to the Defence Policy Board, a group of intellectuals and former senior officials who advise the Pentagon on defence policy.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corporation analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Mideast.

The briefing runs counter to the present U.S. stance that Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally in the region, yet represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration, especially on the staff of Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Pentagon's civilian leadership, and among neo-conservatives allied with administration policymakers.

One administration official said opinion about Saudi Arabia is changing rapidly within government. "People used to rationalize Saudi behaviour," he said. "You don't hear that anymore. There's no doubt people are recognizing reality and recognizing that Saudi Arabia is a problem."

The decision to bring the anti-Saudi analysis before the defence board also appears tied to the growing debate over whether to launch a U.S. military attack to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The board chairman is former Pentagon official Richard Perle, one of the most prominent advocates in Washington of just such an invasion. He did not return calls for comment.

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said in a statement last night: "Neither the presentations nor the Defence Policy Board members' comments reflect the official views of the department of defence." Saudi Arabia, she said, is a longstanding friend and ally and co-operating fully in the global war on terrorism.

Murawiec said in his briefing the U.S. should demand Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets, stop all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli statements in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services." If the Saudis refused to comply, the briefing continued, Saudi oil fields and overseas financial assets should be "targeted."

The report concludes by linking regime change in Iraq to altering Saudi behaviour. This view holds that once a U.S. invasion has removed Saddam from power, a friendly successor regime would become a major exporter of oil to the West. That would diminish dependence on Saudi exports, and let the U.S. finally confront the House of Saud for supporting terrorism.

"The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad," said the administration official, who is hawkish on Iraq. "Once you have a democratic regime in Iraq, like the ones we helped establish in Germany and Japan after World War II, there are a lot of possibilities."

shootinstudent
October 7, 2005, 05:54 PM
I'll clarify indirect support: financial support for those who participate in bombings or other first strike aggression. There's been plenty of documentation of that happening in SA and also in Ira

If it's documented, go after the individuals who are giving the money. Why do you need to bomb whole neighborhoods, babies and all, if you have proof of who's giving money?


If you can't support the concept of at least some degree of group culpability, than you remove all social responsibility from individuals to control their fellow citizens actions,and you remove the moral validity of any warmaking of any kind, leaving only targeted assassinations as morally valid. I can't buy that.

It is utter fallacy to say that only targeted assassinations are allowed if you reject collective responsibility. Soldiers in uniform are bearing arms against you. Terrorists are bearing arms against you. That's why 500 years of moral development have left us with laws of war that allow only for attacks on Soldiers. That's exactly the point: "social responsibility", ie, collective guilt, is immoral, and attacks on people who are not directly participating in the bearing of arms against you have been considered war crimes since before the 100 years war.

Since the question of who struck first regarding Iraq is a bit sketchy, I'll have to default to my "first aggressor principle". Did Iraq attack us, or plot to attack us first, or did we actually preemptively attack with insufficient aggression against us. It's not as clear as it is with the Saudis.


There is no evidence of a plot for Iraq to have invaded the US before the war. So it would be reasonable for an Iraqi citizen to see the invasion of his country as the first aggression, right? I think you can't deny that point. If so, the US being the "first aggressor" against his country, would said Iraqi be justified in coming to america and shooting little kids at a bus stop? How about morally justified in bombing New York to smithereens? After all, it's at least reasonable for him to believe that the US was the "first agressor" against his people. It's just a question of survival, right?

It is wrong. We agree on that. What we don't agree on is who shoulders the moral responsibility falls on. I say that when it's part of "collateral damage" as a result of bombing the citizens who support terror with their finances, donations,volunteer time,etc. it falls on the shoulders of those who began the aggression.
The culpable party at Dresden was not the Allies, but the Axis powers for beginning the aggression.


This reasoning sounds strikingly familiar. Look at what some world leaders have said:
"And just as your beautiful skyscrapers were destroyed and caused your grief, beautiful buildings and
precious homes crumbled over their owners in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq by American weapons....
Americans should feel the pain they have inflicted on other peoples of the world, so as when they suffer, they
will find the right solution and the right path. " - President Saddam Hussein, Iraq


From: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/index2.html

Looks like you and Saddam are on the same page. I see it as "You kill my brother, I'll retaliate by killing some guy who lives on your street and his whole family" style (in)Justice.

When you advocate war crimes, you are responsible. Period. And then we have the final issue you brought up....

Oddly enough, that's not a war they can win if we look at all of the numbers on paper.

I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but if you mean Islamist terrorists, right now, they are a tiny fraction of the 1.2 billion peaceful and good Muslims in the world. If we follow your plan and start blowing up little kids in Saudi Arabia, I guarantee you their numbers will grow....and rightfully so. The attacks on Americans are wrong specifically because they are brutal attacks on civillians who are doing no violence to anyone else; if you advocate doing the same to millions, you deserve every bit of backlash it will create.

Poodleshooter
October 7, 2005, 06:28 PM
If it's documented, go after the individuals who are giving the money. Why do you need to bomb whole neighborhoods, babies and all, if you have proof of who's giving money? How do we do that if it's completely legal in their society, and encouraged by their neighbors?

It is utter fallacy to say that only targeted assassinations are allowed if you reject collective responsibility. Soldiers in uniform are bearing arms against you. Terrorists are bearing arms against you. That's why 500 years of moral development have left us with laws of war that allow only for attacks on Soldiers. That's exactly the point: "social responsibility", ie, collective guilt, is immoral, and attacks on people who are not directly participating in the bearing of arms against you have been considered war crimes since before the 100 years war. Not at all. If there were soldiers in Saudia Arabia bearing arms openly against us, this wouldn't be a difficult moral question. Your idea fails to take in account assymetric or guerrilla warfare. I find that style of warfare to be immoral in the sense that one uses one's own countrymen as shields,forcing a conventional response.
500 years of warfare have left us with moral development? Those same laws of war allow direct execution of non-uniformed combatants. They are NOT held to the same standards as even soldiers are.
By whose standards is the use of collective guilt immoral? Obviously many people disagree on that point or we wouldn't have conventional war as has been practice for the past few centuries. The question of attacks on non-combatants was raised in WWI when the first bombers struck London. It has not yet been resolved. To assert it as a moral certainty has no more base than my claim that it is moral.

This reasoning sounds strikingly familiar. Look at what some world leaders have said

I'm not going to take the Saddam bait. You and I both know that group culpability has driven every war in recent memory. The simple fact that Saddam asserts it does not make it wrong. What makes his statement wrong is his assertion that the United States initiated violence against middle eastern citizens.


I'm not sure who you mean by "they", but if you mean Islamist terrorists, right now, they are a tiny fraction of the 1.2 billion peaceful and good Muslims in the world. If we follow your plan and start blowing up little kids in Saudi Arabia, I guarantee you their numbers will grow....and rightfully so. The attacks on Americans are wrong specifically because they are brutal attacks on civillians who are doing no violence to anyone else; if you advocate doing the same to millions, you deserve every bit of backlash it will create.
Nice attempt to demonize a pronoun. Traditionally, pronouns refer back to the subject in question, in other words the terrorists in this case.
If Islamic terrorists are such a disagreeable, unsympathized with minority in the world, then why haven't they been outed by their neighbors? Why do we see large crowds on TV threatening death to our citizens? Why do they continue to receive financial support. Personally, I think that much of the middle eastern and African Islamic world supports the terrorist's goals even if they don't support their methods. I would really like to be proven wrong on this point, but I'm not seeing enough evidence to the contrary. Statements by CAIR don't count,BTW.
While perhaps cowardly,the attacks on America were wrong not because of who they were conducted upon, but because of why they were conducted-The basis for their aggression was invalid. They attacked us because they disagree with our beliefs,our economic structure and our cultural pressure in their homeland, not because we had first attacked their people.

Anyway, it was interesting discussing morals. I often find disagreement with non-gun related opinions here, but seldom voice my own opinion on it. It provides an interesting window into other's beliefs if nothing else.

shootinstudent
October 7, 2005, 07:13 PM
500 years of warfare have left us with moral development? Those same laws of war allow direct execution of non-uniformed combatants. They are NOT held to the same standards as even soldiers are.
By whose standards is the use of collective guilt immoral? Obviously many people disagree on that point or we wouldn't have conventional war as has been practice for the past few centuries.

This is an easy one: Every single developed nation in the world condemns intentional attacks on noncombatants. Try to find one nation where intentionally killing people who are not individually participating in violence is legal, and you won't. Intentionally killing noncombatants is illegal by international convention, and by domestic law, in every western country. "Corruption of the blood" is specifically prohibited by the US constitution. I think that's pretty good as far as agreement goes.

You and I both know that group culpability has driven every war in recent memory.

I disagree 100 percent. Did we fight Vietnam in order to punish the Vietnamese for communism, or was there a different goal there? Did we fight in Kuwait to punish the Iraqi people for what Saddam's army did? And the most current invasion...are you saying that it was an attack on the whole Iraqi people, since they were "collectively responsible" for some crime that would've justified war? I think you are confusing acts that affect whole groups of people with acts that are specifically designed to be a response to "collective guilt." Yes, wars affect noncombatants. That doesn't mean that every war happens because the US blames all the citizens of the opposing nation for its problems.

If Islamic terrorists are such a disagreeable, unsympathized with minority in the world, then why haven't they been outed by their neighbors?

They have. Almost every terrorist that is captured (and most Al Qaeda captures have come from the Islamic world) ends up in US or US ally hands because someone informed. Terrorists don't go around advertising their membership in deadly plots, no matter where they live, so it's entirely understandable as to why they aren't caught in Islamic countries. It's the same reason they sometimes aren't caught in the US.

Why do we see large crowds on TV threatening death to our citizens?

"large crowds" are a ridiculously small percentage of 1.2 billion people. But in any case, the people who do end up in these crowds are there because they subscribe to a faulty idea--That all Americans and Westerners are collectively guilty for their governments having supporting the regimes that have abused Muslims for 100 years now.

Personally, I think that much of the middle eastern and African Islamic world supports the terrorist's goals even if they don't support their methods. I would really like to be proven wrong on this point, but I'm not seeing enough evidence to the contrary.

Here's a short list of condemnations of terrorism: http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

And then here's someone who speaks out against Saudi radicalism and all violence (my favorite Sheikh): www.amislam.com;
http://www.meforum.org/article/14

While perhaps cowardly,the attacks on America were wrong not because of who they were conducted upon, but because of why they were conducted-The basis for their aggression was invalid. They attacked us because they disagree with our beliefs,our economic structure and our cultural pressure in their homeland, not because we had first attacked their people.

That's not what the terrorists say. They always tie their butchery to direct US support for Israel and for oppressive middle eastern regimes. Are you saying that if their read of the facts were indeed correct, that Israel were the "first aggressor" against the Arab states, and that Israel was armed by the US, they would indeed have done a moral thing in attacking the World Trade Center? I think any system of thinking that allows for a "yes" answer to that question is seriously flawed, and that's the kind of thinking that fuels terrorism more than anything else.

I agree, btw, that it's interesting to see others views. I'm always happy to see a civil discussion of rights and justice. No matter what a person's beliefs, as long as he doesn't actively try to harm others...I say debate away.

Gordon Fink
October 7, 2005, 07:28 PM
If you can’t support the concept of at least some degree of group culpability, than you remove all social responsibility from individuals to control their fellow citizens actions.…
This fallacious assumption is exactly why strategic bombing failed psychologically. The proponents theorized that strategic bombing would demoralize the enemy’s civilian population, causing it to withdraw support from the war effort and possibly even to revolt against the enemy leadership. In fact, the bombing only hardened civilian resolve and caused even those who disagreed with the government to lend it their support.

Group culpability is a ticket to tyranny. Why do you think we suffer under all these foolish gun-control “laws”?


… that’s not a war they can win if we look at all of the numbers on paper. The reason they persist is that for some reason they don’t seem to know that they can’t win.…
You’re right. The Islamic terrorists think they can win because they believe God is on their side.

~G. Fink

CAnnoneer
October 8, 2005, 12:10 AM
This fallacious assumption is exactly why strategic bombing failed psychologically.

Failure depends on your definition of intended goal. According to politicians, including Churchill and Hitler, terror and intimidation were the main goals, and thus strategic bombing failed. Now if we are talking about damage and death instead, as per Harris's and LeMay's definition, then it was quite successful.

As doves bleed from their hearts about enemy civilians half a world away, we stride at rapid march towards the point at which what they fear will become an inevitability.

I second previous posters in their sentiment that we should just go ahead and launch now, preferrably fusion nukes only. Then move in and claim the oil. What euroes think is something of extreme indifference to me. While the loss of life is regrettable, I'd rather see their lives lost than ours.

shootinstudent
October 8, 2005, 02:52 AM
I second previous posters in their sentiment that we should just go ahead and launch now, preferrably fusion nukes only. Then move in and claim the oil. What euroes think is something of extreme indifference to me. While the loss of life is regrettable, I'd rather see their lives lost than ours.


And this is scary, Unamerican, and utterly sick. It is precisely the terrorist's logic: Kill everyone who opposes you and take all for yourself. Who you kill doesn't matter, because it's "us versus them".

Of course, this is moot, because you are dreaming if you think you are going to save American lives by murdering (and it is murder by any definition) a few million people in the middle east. The entire world, including the 1.1 billion Muslims remaining and everyone else who already isn't happy with America, would rise up against US terrorism, alongside a significant number of Americans (those who still have enough moral sense to be offended by the idea of burning little girls and women in their homes.) Your idea of murder to take over the oil fields is a sure plan for not only turning the US into a country as murderous as any other in history, but also to destroy the United States we know it.

If you think that in this day and age you can slaughter millions without suffering a terrible fate....well, I sure hope and pray that you'll never have to find out just how sick that idea is.

CAnnoneer
October 8, 2005, 01:51 PM
There is the way the world ought to be, and there is the way the world is.

The reality is that we are looking at shrinking natural resources and insane expansion of world population. We need oil for our survival and for the continuation of our technologically advanced society, to buy us time to develop new technologies and energy sources that will end or drastically diminish our dependence on fossil fuels.

In any case, in the short run the resources will not be enough and there will be a great die-off. We can see that by the increased illegal immigration in all parts of the world, where desperate people try to leave the sinking ships of their own failing societies and collapsing ecosystems, and come to us. Just like in a shipwreck where overloading your own boat will kill you too, trying to save everybody in the third world will accomplish the same foolish end.

If there is any hope for preservation of civilization's accomplishments and the achievement of further greatness of mankind, it lies with us and the preservation and continuation of our own technological societies. Sacrificing us to save the others will only get most of us killed too, while the few survivors will be back to the Dark Ages, but without oil to get back to 20th c. tech and beyond.

Meanwhile we are happy to buy oil at reasonable prices from these third-world countries and sell them our industrial high-tech products. That is a fair and meaningful exchange. But, they broke the contract by terrorism, hateful ideologies, financing and supporting those among them who seek to destroy us. That marks the end of peaceful coexistence and the beginning of vigorous renegotiations.

If you think that in this day and age you can slaughter millions without suffering a terrible fate....well, I sure hope and pray that you'll never have to find out just how sick that idea is.

"Sick" is an ethical/aesthetical judgment call. Reality does not care about such things. Reality just is. It is governed by physical laws and mathematics, which are by nature indifferent to such judgments. Those who choose to make emotional decisions that ignore objective reality, never regret it because they do not live to.

The entire world, including the 1.1 billion Muslims remaining and everyone else who already isn't happy with America, would rise up against US terrorism

We have 3,000 missiles with multiple warheads. That is at least 10x more than enough for everybody. The year is 2005, not 1917. Nukes make numbers meaningless.

alongside a significant number of Americans (those who still have enough moral sense to be offended by the idea of burning little girls and women in their homes.)

That is ironic. You save them and they hate you for it. It is not the first time that hypocritic travesty would happen.

Your idea of murder to take over the oil fields is a sure plan for not only turning the US into a country as murderous as any other in history, but also to destroy the United States we know it.

Historically, we have been pretty "murderous" already. I prefer the term "practical". Also, "US as we know it" is rapidly unraveling as we speak, albeit for different reasons, the eternal law of change being not the least of them.

JohnBT
October 8, 2005, 02:53 PM
"Personally, I think that much of the middle eastern and African Islamic world supports the terrorist's goals even if they don't support their methods."

A fair number of Americans too from what I see.

John

longeyes
October 8, 2005, 03:33 PM
Eschatological conversations can be fun.

I remain hopeful, by practice, but fear, along with Cannoneer, that the globe will experience a massive "pruning."

You don't need to nuke huge masses of people: interruption of their infrastructure and access to vital stuffs would set the terminal process in motion.

There will be people in our society who will perish of guilt if The Worst Happens, but most will find ways to rationalize slaughter in the name of survival and most will, I'm afraid, feel more relieved than guilty. Meet the human race, awful and glorious.

shootinstudent
October 8, 2005, 08:14 PM
CAnnoneer,

"Sick" is an ethical/aesthetical judgment call. Reality does not care about such things. Reality just is. It is governed by physical laws and mathematics, which are by nature indifferent to such judgments. Those who choose to make emotional decisions that ignore objective reality, never regret it because they do not live to.

If everything is governed by mathematics, then how can you choose one path over another? If you can choose anything, you can choose not to kill millions of people intentionally. If you are a determinist, then you can't hold any terrorist culpable for the things he does, because he's just doing what he's "mathematically determined to do." All of this long resources talk is basically a rehash of the social-darwinist/Neo-Nazi case for killing off all the inferior races. It is 100 percent bunk, and it does not justify murdering millions.

We have 3,000 missiles with multiple warheads. That is at least 10x more than enough for everybody. The year is 2005, not 1917. Nukes make numbers meaningless.

You can't inhabit a world that has had 70 percent of its land mass nuked. That's common sense. Nuking 1.2 billion people will destroy the environment, tar the US's name for the rest of time, and inspire EVERYONE, Muslim or not, to destroy the US in the name of stopping the most murderous regime in history.

You are, in sum, ignoring reality if you think that murdering a billion people will go unnoticed and do no damage to the world's economy. Murder on that scale will land us exactly where it landed the Nazis: sitting in someone else's courtrooms trying to explain to the world how we became so incredibly insane.

You don't need to nuke huge masses of people: interruption of their infrastructure and access to vital stuffs would set the terminal process in motion.

There will be people in our society who will perish of guilt if The Worst Happens, but most will find ways to rationalize slaughter in the name of survival and most will, I'm afraid, feel more relieved than guilty. Meet the human race, awful and glorious.

Which side are you on? Rationalizing slaughter, like a terrorist?

You are failing to consider group number three: Those who recognize murder and genocide as evil, and righteously fight against the murder-State.

"Interruption of infrastructure" is not going to go unnoticed either. The world already is convinced that America is an evil empire. It won't take much to convince them to go from hating but doing business to actively working against our existence in every way. China, Europe, Russia, India...you name the country, it's going to have an active part in destroying the US if we become a murder-state instead of remaining true to the principles of American freedom. And they'd be right to do it; no Government has a right to exist that threatens the lives of millions of people in the name of "national interest" or "survival of the fittest." We proved that in 1945, and I'm sad to see that some of my fellow Americans seem to have forgotten.

longeyes
October 8, 2005, 08:49 PM
Which side are you on? Rationalizing slaughter, like a terrorist?

Uh, no, I'm for self-defense and, beyond that, for the defense of the values that I believe in. I prefer peaceful solutions. But... If that requires annihilation of enemies sworn to destroy my world, then so be it. I have yet to find myself at oh dark hundred bolt upright, in a cold sweat, having nightmares about what we did to the Nazis. I may lack sensitivity, I don't know, but there it is.

Restraint is required on both sides. See my earlier post about which is more "holy," Mecca or the Library of Congress, Medina or the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art. You can probably, by now, figure out my answer to that question. It shouldn't have to come to an either/or, it really shouldn't, and we hope it won't, but history is full of what some people can needless slaughter or what others call collateral damage in the advance of civilization.

longeyes
October 8, 2005, 08:57 PM
The world already is convinced that America is an evil empire. It won't take much to convince them to go from hating but doing business to actively working against our existence in every way. China, Europe, Russia, India...you name the country, it's going to have an active part in destroying the US if we become a murder-state instead of remaining true to the principles of American freedom. And they'd be right to do it; no Government has a right to exist that threatens the lives of millions of people in the name of "national interest" or "survival of the fittest." We proved that in 1945, and I'm sad to see that some of my fellow Americans seem to have forgotten.

Wow.

What can I say?

You think WE are the "murder-state?" Please, do a quick fly-over of this planet.

Murder on that scale will land us exactly where it landed the Nazis: sitting in someone else's courtrooms trying to explain to the world how we became so incredibly insane.

This is the wet dream of every angry Leftist on this globe: Americans in front of a tribunal of the People's Justice, being tried for war crimes. Don't count on it.

shootinstudent
October 8, 2005, 09:11 PM
Longeyes,

You need to reread my posts.

You think WE are the "murder-state?" Please, do a quick fly-over of this planet.


No, I do not. I am saying that what makes us NOT a murder state is the fact that we aren't trying to kill millions of people. So if we go ahead and do what you and CAnnoneer are proposing, yes, we will be a murder state.


This is the wet dream of every angry Leftist on this globe: Americans in front of a tribunal of the People's Justice, being tried for war crimes. Don't count on it.

It is, and I sure hate the idea, not being a leftist myself. But guess what? If the US goes on a mission to kill millions of people, you can be assured that it will happen. Turn your government into a murder state, and you can count on the fact that the rest of the world will fight it.

In sum, what I'm saying is this: If you want to hand the angry leftists and all those who want to see the US fall their dreams, just support murder...it will convince the entire world that the anti-American radicals were right about us, and give them justification to attack.

And I'll repeat: If we do in fact start bombing the middle east just to kill people off, these other countries and angry leftists will be Right as Rain to tear America apart. See my last post:no Government has a right to exist that threatens the lives of millions of people in the name of "national interest" or "survival of the fittest." We proved that in 1945, and I'm sad to see that some of my fellow Americans seem to have forgotten.

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 8, 2005, 09:34 PM
Here's an interesting question, somewhat unrelated:

Hypothetically, if the U.S. were to begin exterminating people on a Holocaust-type scale, would the rest of the world have the balls to try to stop us? If so, would they succeed?

Biker
October 8, 2005, 09:41 PM
Yes to both questions. We're already dangerously close to writing checks with our collective mouths that our collective butts can't cash. China and Russia would jump on the opportunity quicker than a buzzard on fresh roadkill...
Biker

longeyes
October 8, 2005, 10:44 PM
In sum, what I'm saying is this: If you want to hand the angry leftists and all those who want to see the US fall their dreams, just support murder...it will convince the entire world that the anti-American radicals were right about us, and give them justification to attack.

We are, it seems, already hated. We will go on being envied, feared, hated. And the rest of the world will go on being transformed by what we think and do.

I don't see the U.S. embarking on any promiscuous "murder" campaign. It is not we who are teaching small children to see people of other faiths and cultures as sub-human. Frankly, the Arab world was barely on the American radar screen before the recent historic unpleasantness. Americans are, frankly, not that interested in the Middle East or Muslims; they have plenty on their plate, in all senses, at home, plenty to savor and plenty to protect.

shootinstudent
October 8, 2005, 11:37 PM
I don't see the U.S. embarking on any promiscuous "murder" campaign. It is not we who are teaching small children to see people of other faiths and cultures as sub-human.

Some of us here in the western world are clearly teaching others to see a different faiths and cultures as subhuman. How else do you justify advocating nuclear attacks on civilians, as has been done in this thread. As to the US embarking on a murder campaign...I didn't think it would ever be possible either, but some of the comments I'm hearing these days make me wonder. Look at these posts for example:

You don't need to nuke huge masses of people: interruption of their infrastructure and access to vital stuffs would set the terminal process in motion.

There will be people in our society who will perish of guilt if The Worst Happens, but most will find ways to rationalize slaughter in the name of survival and most will, I'm afraid, feel more relieved than guilty.
I second previous posters in their sentiment that we should just go ahead and launch now, preferrably fusion nukes only. Then move in and claim the oil.

You asked earlier "which culture is toying with the idea of genocide?"

Answer: The terrorist culture. Both western and eastern. Some radical pretend-Muslim terrorists want to kill all westerners, and just the same, there are so-called Americans who have spoken out in support of support of killing all 1.2 billion Muslims, or at least all Saudi Arabians. Both support murder.

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 12:29 AM
Let's be fair: which Americans were advocating killing Muslims before the attacks of the '90s and 9/11? I'm really not aware of any. Muslims, on the other hand, appear to have been in a revenge mode since Charles Martel and, later, the Crusades.

No one here, it seems to me, is talking about advocating "murder," only military responses to deadly mass attacks. I'll say that again: responses. Acts of self-defense. We can quibble about the equivalency of targets, but that isn't really the point.

Both Japan and Germany were working on WMDs (nuclear, bio) that they would have, had the war dragged on, willingly used on this country. We were out of line to drop nuclear bombs on Japanese cities? No more than the Japanese were to rape and pillage Nanking.

Discriminating, in all-out wars, between military combatants and adjutant civilians is a nicety best left to academic speculation. You don't want, if possible, to get to the point where you have to ask whether another culture is a threat to your survival. Usually a LOT has happened before you get to that awful juncture.

shootinstudent
October 9, 2005, 12:43 AM
which Americans were advocating killing Muslims before the attacks of the '90s and 9/11? I'm really not aware of any. Muslims, on the other hand, appear to have been in a revenge mode since Charles Martel and, later, the Crusades.

"Muslims" are not one group, all speaking with the same voice. The vast majority were not behind the terror attacks, just like the vast majority of Christians did not support the murder of 200,000 people in Bosnia by Christians. As for the past....way off. The imperial expansion of the Muslims was not "revenge", it was expansion, as was par for the period. And they fought to establish states that granted religious freedom and eliminated the crushing post-Roman tax system. That's another can of worms though, and it has zero to do with whether or not bombing civillians is legitimate today.

No one here, it seems to me, is talking about advocating "murder," only military responses to deadly mass attacks. I'll say that again: responses. Acts of self-defense. We can quibble about the equivalency of targets, but that isn't really the point.

Using nuclear weapons on cities full of civillians is murder. It's not "self-defense" when you kill millions of people in any way, shape, or form. Think of it this way: If there's a serial killer running loose in milwaukee, can the rest of Wisconsin execute every last man woman and child in the city in order to "defend" itself from the serial killer? You're not talking about legitimate defense; you're talking about collective punishment. It's not "quibbling" to say that it's wrong to kill millions over the actions of a few.

Both Japan and Germany were working on WMDs (nuclear, bio) that they would have, had the war dragged on, willingly used on this country. We were out of line to drop nuclear bombs on Japanese cities? No more than the Japanese were to rape and pillage Nanking.

Do you think the rape of nanking was morally justified and in line with legitimate self defense???? You are either condemning the dropping of the bomb, or saying that the Rape of Nanking was permissible. Which is it?

Discriminating, in all-out wars, between military combatants and adjutant civilians is a nicety best left to academic speculation. You don't want, if possible, to get to the point where you have to ask whether another culture is a threat to your survival. Usually a LOT has happened before you get to that awful juncture.

You're ignoring the main point here, which is that, if you start killing millions of civillians, the entire world will turn against you and fight. The best way to set yourself up for a crushing military defeat is to be so disgusting and immoral that no one, not even the most hypocritical communist state, would support you. This is a huge problem for your theories...killing millions has not and will never help you win a modern military campaign. It is only going to ensure defeat, and to destroy your government's reputation for the rest of time.

The question of whether or not another culture is a threat to our survival is easy to answer with regards to Islam. Its culture has not represented a threat to the west since the time of the Mongols, and in that time western culture didn't possess anything remotely like the freedom and democracy it supports today. Terrorism isn't a culture...it's a fringe group of hard-line radicals that has more in common with the fascist movements of the early 20th century than it does with traditional Islam. Just like the people who advocate murdering millions as "collective punishment" don't speak for all of the West, right?

Otherguy Overby
October 9, 2005, 01:49 PM
What we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat...

Historically, the most successful person to deal with Saudis was Ghengis Khan.

When they wouldn't pay him plunder he killed off their best and brightest. Thus, for the last 800 years or so, the Saudis have been breeding with their cousins. You might ask someone who's been there about the intelligence of the average Saudi.

Now, as to killing innocent children: Variations of that mantra put most Americans into a mental loop which tends to inhibit thought and proper action. This may well lead us to dither and delay facing the choice of our children or theirs. Remember they don't care. Our "principled conflict" will be used against us and OUR children.

The collective epitaph for US culture may well read: "It was for the children."

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 01:59 PM
If and when this nation begins killing "civilians" by the millions, all of these arguments will be moot. A LOT will have happened first. And, frankly, I don't think we will give a fig what the other nations of world think at that point or whether, as you believe, they will rise up against us en masse. We need to make sure that we never get to that point--and so do the Muslim extremists.

I won't engage you in debates about history. I never said the early advances of Islam were driven by revenge; they were driven by zealotry and a desire for control. Rome gave us more than crushing tax-codes, as you know, and to characterize the growth of Islam as "expansion" is to engage in meaningless euphemism. We can certainly thank Islamic scholars for spurring the Renaissance, no small part of which was...re-discovering Rome.

I don't make the same combatant/civilian dichotomy you make. Wars don't begin with military exercises, they begin with ideas--and those ideas start in the cradle and are fostered in the classroom, in the religious centers, in the media. War machines, anyone's, are sustained by civilians. Cultures battle each other, and cultures are non-genetic "DNA." That's why genocide is always potential in all-out conflict.

CAnnoneer
October 9, 2005, 04:10 PM
If everything is governed by mathematics, then how can you choose one path over another?

Physics and mathematics only tell you what is possible and what is not. Among the available possibilities, everyone use his own free will to choose his path. We can take the oil for ourselves and survive, or not take it and die. Simple.

All of this long resources talk is basically a rehash of the social-darwinist/Neo-Nazi case for killing off all the inferior races. It is 100 percent bunk, and it does not justify murdering millions.

That is reality. Reality says you need resources to survive. You don't eat, you die. It is that simple. Pure math of calories. The Nazis had the gall to argue they were somehow better and therefore entitled to them. I don't need such justifications. Survival is justification enough for me.

If our advanced societies survive, there will also be a long-term benefit for mankind as a whole. It must be understood that TGDO (the great die-off) is inevitable, the world being what it is now. It is not a hypothesis, but an assured reality based on math. The only question is how we limit and modify the damage.

You can't inhabit a world that has had 70 percent of its land mass nuked.

If we fusion-nuke cities of population above 0.5 million, and use conventional bombs to destroy power stations, water purification plants, and dams, the fallout will be minimal, while the societies will collapse and succumb to diseases, famine, and exposure. Katrina proved how thin the line is between civilized living and stone age hell. Again, this is incontrovertible science and math.

You are, in sum, ignoring reality if you think that murdering a billion people will go unnoticed and do no damage to the world's economy.

To convince yourself otherwise, look at the GNP of the countries in question minus what they gain by selling us oil. Their disappearance will be meaningless, a drop in the world ocean. Just little UK produces more GNP than half of Africa put together. There will certainly be a stock market crash, for purely psychological reasons, followed by a quick recovery. End result= no effect.


Murder on that scale will land us exactly where it landed the Nazis: sitting in someone else's courtrooms trying to explain to the world how we became so incredibly insane.

Whose exactly? There will be a lot of shouting, followed by a few years of intense frowning, followed by BAU (business as usual). There won't even be a Cold War, because there are no opposing ideologies to speak of.


Which side are you on? Rationalizing slaughter, like a terrorist?

My side. Terrorists preach murder out of hatred, intolerance, envy, and superstition. I preach retaliatory strikes out of self-preservation. I don't hate them, and thus my judgment is not clouded.

no Government has a right to exist that threatens the lives of millions of people in the name of "national interest"

On the contrary. A "national" government has exactly the duty to defend the interests of the "nation". Something our own international-corporate-socialist government seems to have forgotten.

Derek Zeanah
October 9, 2005, 05:45 PM
Some days I find inspiration and hope on this board.

Other days, it just really depresses me.

There are way too many otherwise intelligent people here who are willing to throw out thousands of years worth of socialization, societal values, and morality for some vague reason or another. Either it's "there's not enough, we're stronger, so it's OK to take what we want" or it's "they're all worthy of death because some of their number hate us and have acted against us."

People who put themselves first, and who give no value to the lives and aspirations of others. People who, if caught in a disaster, would willingly slaughter you and your family because, while they should have prepared and hindsight is 20-20, need is everything, and you can't argue with starvation.

Damn. Y'all suck.

shootinstudent
October 9, 2005, 06:29 PM
I don't make the same combatant/civilian dichotomy you make. Wars don't begin with military exercises, they begin with ideas--and those ideas start in the cradle and are fostered in the classroom, in the religious centers, in the media. War machines, anyone's, are sustained by civilians. Cultures battle each other, and cultures are non-genetic "DNA." That's why genocide is always potential in all-out conflict.

Okay, and what makes you think that the rest of the world is going to sit by while the US does this? Will it be less hated in the future? Will most Americans (you know, like the ones who have supported laws banning the killing of civillians since the beginning) and indeed most countries in the world just stand by? I sure doubt it. If someone tries to carry out an "all out conflict", he'll receive it in return from the whole planet. Your dream scenario here ignores reality: other nations matter, and especially given the way we make money, they aren't powerless. If you want to destroy America, just keep convincing everyone that it could possibly begin a genocide.



If our advanced societies survive, there will also be a long-term benefit for mankind as a whole. It must be understood that TGDO (the great die-off) is inevitable, the world being what it is now. It is not a hypothesis, but an assured reality based on math. The only question is how we limit and modify the damage.

This is the classic Malthusian trap. It's been argued for a few hundred years now, and it proves to be false every time. Join the PETA alarmists. Now if by losing oil you mean not being able to have 50 million plastic toys and SUV's driven as much as you want....I'll trade the lives of millions for that ability any day.

If we fusion-nuke cities of population above 0.5 million, and use conventional bombs to destroy power stations, water purification plants, and dams, the fallout will be minimal, while the societies will collapse and succumb to diseases, famine, and exposure. Katrina proved how thin the line is between civilized living and stone age hell. Again, this is incontrovertible science and math.

And what do you think the rest of the world is going to do when the US starts nuking cities? The only "incontrovertible math" at play here is that there will be retaliation. You have zero ability to predict how people react to disaster in the long run. But you can be sure in the short run that nuclear attacks will earn us an entire world to battle. Not too healthy for America if you ask me.


Whose exactly? There will be a lot of shouting, followed by a few years of intense frowning, followed by BAU (business as usual). There won't even be a Cold War, because there are no opposing ideologies to speak of.

You are dreaming. Human rights and basic decency are two such "ideologies" to oppose murdering millions. America-is-evil is a pretty popular ideology. And the way you're talking, there's truth to it. Rejecting all moral principle and saying "hey, this murdering of millions is only for my survival!" is definitely evil.

Again, you are ignoring reality in the same way that you accuse we on the "let's not kill millions" side of ignoring the facts. It is not realistic to think that millions can be killed without retaliation. You will swell the ranks of terrorism, get Western Europe to sign on to it, and get China to assume the role of the world power against genocide. I'm sure the Nazis thought in 1939 after beating Poland that they'd have no such trouble too....and now we've come full circle, apparently, to their lack of morality and total arrogance.

To quote Derek:

There are way too many otherwise intelligent people here who are willing to throw out thousands of years worth of socialization, societal values, and morality for some vague reason or another. Either it's "there's not enough, we're stronger, so it's OK to take what we want" or it's "they're all worthy of death because some of their number hate us and have acted against us."

It sure is depressing to me also. Longeyes, CAnnoneer....your ideas are unAmerican. Rejecting human rights and killing for "survival" is against the law, and is condemned by our moral tradition here in the US. We hate the memory of the Nazi government for this, yet you all are arguing for a recreation that kills everyone instead of just one or two groups.

The teachings of Islam against murdering civillians make the religion far, far more American than the ideas you two are promoting here. I'll trade the people who advocate genocide for a boat load of Sheikhs in America any day.

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 06:46 PM
Shootin',

Go back to class and learn to read. I'm not arguing for genocide, only being realistic about self-defense in what-if scenarios. If you want to be an apologist for barbarians, be my guest, it won't change anything that happens. I think we have right on our side; when I think we don't I'll change my allegiance and work for what I believe is the high road. You are tilting against straw men. It must be fun. Enjoy.

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 06:52 PM
Rejecting human rights and killing for "survival" is against the law, and is condemned by our moral tradition here in the US. We hate the memory of the Nazi government for this, yet you all are arguing for a recreation that kills everyone instead of just one or two groups.

The teachings of Islam against murdering civillians make the religion far, far more American than the ideas you two are promoting here. I'll trade the people who advocate genocide for a boat load of Sheikhs in America any day.

Who exactly is commiting atrocities and mocking human rights? I believe in dealing with whomever is responsible and whomever poses a mortal danger. No more, no less.

I think most of us on this board know who the people on this planet are who advocate "genocide." It's not Americans, and it's not yours truly. It's good to hear, yet again, that the teachings of Islam prohibit murdering civilians. I guess we have nothing to worry about then.

shootinstudent
October 9, 2005, 07:05 PM
Longeyes,

I think most of us on this board know who the people on this planet are who advocate "genocide."

Yep, we sure do, and I'll quote them. Tell me if you recognize these quotes:

I don't make the same combatant/civilian dichotomy you make. Wars don't begin with military exercises, they begin with ideas--and those ideas start in the cradle and are fostered in the classroom, in the religious centers, in the media. War machines, anyone's, are sustained by civilians. Cultures battle each other, and cultures are non-genetic "DNA." That's why genocide is always potential in all-out conflict.
Discriminating, in all-out wars, between military combatants and adjutant civilians is a nicety best left to academic speculation. I prefer peaceful solutions. But... If that requires annihilation of enemies sworn to destroy my world, then so be it. You don't need to nuke huge masses of people: interruption of their infrastructure and access to vital stuffs would set the terminal process in motion. If we fusion-nuke cities of population above 0.5 million, and use conventional bombs to destroy power stations, water purification plants, and dams, the fallout will be minimal, while the societies will collapse and succumb to diseases, famine, and exposure.
Historically, we have been pretty "murderous" already. I prefer the term "practical". Also, "US as we know it" is rapidly unraveling as we speak, albeit for different reasons, the eternal law of change being not the least of them.


That's all just from this thread. Sure looks clear to me who is arguing for genocide here....renaming murder "self-defense" doesn't it make it so. Calling genocide "practical" doesn't make it less evil.

Silly me, I thought the American thing to do when people start talking genocide is to stand up and say "That is wrong, and will always be wrong, because we're Americans and we'll never support murdering women and children."

As much you say you're not arguing for it, all you've done in this thread is stand up and try to justify exactly that in the name of "self defense." I stand by my reading of your previous posts as Un-American.

longeyes
October 9, 2005, 07:31 PM
I guess then Hiroshima and Nagasaki were genocide?

And self-defense is murder now?

As for the charge that I'm un-American, well, I'll just let that one pass. For now.

Over.

Biker
October 9, 2005, 09:10 PM
Longeyes
We're on the same page concerning many things, but this is where we part ways. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden were *not* necessary.
I'm not sure why they occured if not for terrorising the civilian populace.
Dresden could *possibly* be justified, I stress *possibly*, but not the others.
A couple o' pennies...
Biker

CAnnoneer
October 9, 2005, 10:43 PM
Other days, it just really depresses me.

Sorry to hear that. I say it the way I see it. Nature is a harsh hostess.

Okay, and what makes you think that the rest of the world is going to sit by while the US does this? And what do you think the rest of the world is going to do when the US starts nuking cities? The only "incontrovertible math" at play here is that there will be retaliation.

Please explain the mechanism of retaliation that will avoid their own destruction. In the end, self-preservation instinct always wins. The same way the opposing superpower did nothing about Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Vietnam, and Afganistan.

This is the classic Malthusian trap. It's been argued for a few hundred years now, and it proves to be false every time.

I'd say it was proven over and over again throughout history when populations exceeded their support base. Please read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and especially its companion, "Collapse", by Jarrod Diamond. It has also been proven in the last century (20th) over and over again in starving Africa.

Where it has not produced a collapse yet is in the West, because technological developments increases productivity to support the increase in population, while wars took casualties and the birth rates declined. However, the dirty secret is that there was room for further expansion resourcewise. That boon is exactly what can no longer be taken for granted. Ergo the Malthusian danger. Incidentally, on a very small scale this already happened in Iceland, and especially Greenland.

Now if by losing oil you mean not being able to have 50 million plastic toys and SUV's driven as much as you want....I'll trade the lives of millions for that ability any day.

There is certainly a lot of wasteful behavior in our societies. There is no arguing with that. But, it must be understood that even if we get rid of plastic cups and wraps, and incandescent lamps, and SUVs, we will still be in trouble. It would just buy more time for technological developments, and thus I support it. But, to believe that such measures would be enough, or even produce a critical dent, is simply uninformed. We literally eat and drink oil every day.

Human rights and basic decency are two such "ideologies" to oppose murdering millions. America-is-evil is a pretty popular ideology. And the way you're talking, there's truth to it. Rejecting all moral principle and saying "hey, this murdering of millions is only for my survival!" is definitely evil.

Evil, shmevil. When you put enough pressure on a society, it always dies or goes radical. Look at the Weimar Republic. Who would have predicted that cultured Germany, especially its crown jewel of Bavaria, would birthe the Nazis? Somebody "evil" like me. Hehe. There will be enough pressure, and nukes will fly. The question is how, when, and whom. Or, we die.

I'm sure the Nazis thought in 1939 after beating Poland that they'd have no such trouble too....and now we've come full circle, apparently, to their lack of morality and total arrogance.

Hitler miscalculated the determination of the "decadent" West to defend itself AND he had NO nukes. Things would have happened very differently if he did have the nukes. Incidently, this is an argument in my favor, because "cultured, civilized" Britain and US were the ones that bombed Hamburg, Berlin, and Dresden. OBL is making the same mistake thinking we are all "decadent" and weak, and we would not dare nuke his country. So foolish, or maybe he wants us to do it for him. Again, he will poke us until we do.


Longeyes, CAnnoneer....your ideas are unAmerican. Rejecting human rights and killing for "survival" is against the law, and is condemned by our moral tradition here in the US.

I wonder what the Native Americans would have to say about that, or the imported slaves that died in the ships or under the whip. History is important to know if you want to predict the future.

I'll trade the people who advocate genocide for a boat load of Sheikhs in America any day.

They don't advocate violence because they pay clerics to do it for them.

CAnnoneer
October 9, 2005, 10:57 PM
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden were *not* necessary.
I'm not sure why they occured if not for terrorising the civilian populace.

My take is Dresden was completely unnecessary, plain vicious nihilistic misanthropy. It was clear Germany was defeated and the collapse was imminent. Such acts are born of irrational hatred, such as the one of Harris for Germany. In my book Harris is on the same page as OBL.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are another matter entirely. Japan was losing, but it was not broken. So long as their spirit was not broken, they would kill more GIs. After Okinawa, it was obvious invading the mainland would be a blood bath on both sides. The nukes made the emperor see the US determination and understand Japan was facing total annihilation. It was the emperor that ultimately broke the Japanese spirit by explaining to them they are defeated and must surrender. That is the reason why the imperial palace was not one of the nuke targets.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are yet another reason why I believe nukes will be deployed. All it will take is a few more terrorist attacks and high casualty rates among the active troops.

shootinstudent
October 9, 2005, 11:13 PM
Please explain the mechanism of retaliation that will avoid their own destruction. In the end, self-preservation instinct always wins. The same way the opposing superpower did nothing about Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Vietnam, and Afganistan.

The mechanisms will be multifold. Cessation of trade, attacks on American interests in other countries, military mobilization, and quite possibly nuclear terrorist attacks. Vietnam and Afghanistan are great examples...a whole lot was done by superpowers to stop resistence in both places. In both of those the military plans were utter failures, because the moral and ideological high ground was lost to the other side. It is a total denial of history to pretend that Russia and the US "did nothing" about Vietnam and Afghanistan, and as for Czechoslovakia and Hungary....could do nothing is more appropriate.

Please read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and especially its companion, "Collapse", by Jarrod Diamond. It has also been proven in the last century (20th) over and over again in starving Africa.

Where it has not produced a collapse yet is in the West, because technological developments appeared to increase productivity.

I have read both as part of history studies. You answered your own question: The way out of the malthusian trap is development. Destruction destroys infrastructure as much as it does population, so if that's your answer, it just gets you back to square one: little development to match your new reduced population.

It would just buy more time for technological developments, and thus I support it. But, to believe that such measures would be enough, or even produce a critical dent, is simply uninformed. We literally eat and drink oil every day.

Another contradiction. Here you recognize the possibility of new technology that replaces oil. Then you repeat that it's necessary for life. In either case, your theoretical irremovable need for oil doesn't justify murder, and the rest of the world, oil needing or no, is going to recognize it and respond as above.
Evil, shmevil. When you put enough pressure on a society, it always dies or goes radical. Look at the Weimar Republic. Who would have predicted that cultured Germany, especially its crown jewel of Bavaria, would birthe the Nazis? Somebody "evil" like me. Hehe. There will be enough pressure, and nukes will fly. The question is how, when, and whom. Or, we die.
This is exactly what the social darwinists and neo Nazis argue. It is pseudo-social-science. See above re development and alternatives to oil, combined with the strategic folly that such a move would constitute.

Incidently, this is an argument in my favor, because "cultured, civilized" Britain and US were the ones that bombed Hamburg, Berlin, and Dresden. OBL is making the same mistake thinking we are all "decadent" and weak, and we would not dare nuke his country. So foolish, or maybe he wants us to do it for him. Again, he will poke us until we do.

And herein lies your problem: You're equating Osama's terrorist attacks with the entire Muslim world. That is wrongheaded. Osama doesn't have a country, because no one wants him. The vast majority of Muslims are NOT behind terrorism. So responding to Osama by nuking a bunch of muslim civilians would be a huge mistake. It would be like carpet bombing Polish civillians (since they didn't resist the invasion!) in order to punish them for Nazi germany's takeover. The argument isn't in your favor at all, and as another poster mentioned...the carpet bombing actually hardened German resolve against the allies. Didn't help to win the war one bit.


I wonder what the Native Americans would have to say about that, or the imported slaves that died in the ships or under the whip. History is important to know if you want to predict the future.

They would say it's wrong. Are you morally neutral on slavery and genocide against Native Americans too? Are you claiming that the US hasn't rejected that part of its history, and that such methods are culturally acceptable today? Hmmm....I suspect you are in the minority on that. Probably as much as Osama is in the minority concering in Islam.

They don't advocate violence because they pay clerics to do it for them.

Virtually every single Muslim organization in the world has condemned terrorism. The clerics who support it are almost uniformly untrained in their religion, and relegated to the Islamic version of "hillbilly" status.

It's not just history we have to study to learn what a folly genocidal policies are....we've also got to look to the people we're talking about today. Justifying genocide against Muslims because of Osama is like justifying genocide against American white men because of Tim McVeigh. Likewise, claiming that "history" proves your genocidal dream is going to come true is like claiming that studying communism proves that it is the best and most efficient form of government. There's a reason why murder-states collapse, and it's incredibly arrogant and a denial of 1000 years of history to claim it could never happen to the US.

CAnnoneer
October 9, 2005, 11:56 PM
It is a total denial of history to pretend that Russia and the US "did nothing" about Vietnam and Afghanistan, and as for Czechoslovakia and Hungary....could do nothing is more appropriate.

They did not resort to nukes over them and that is exactly as much as I need for my argument. Could not do anything? How convenient. So, we choose when we can and when we cannot do anything. This is blowing huge holes in your own arguments.


Cessation of trade, attacks on American interests in other countries, military mobilization, and quite possibly nuclear terrorist attacks.

All of that would hurt them too. You can't be serious. Places like Russia or China hurting their interests over idealistic concepts? Fantasies of leftists who spend their time watching BBC and have never even visited places like China or Russia. You are certainly well-meaning, but horribly mis/uninformed.

I have read both as part of history studies.

Then you have seen the crushing power of time and that it takes time and effort for societies to restructure and survive by development. My argument is simply that we generally do not have the time required to develop tech fast enough to save everybody. Thus there is no contradiction in my arguments. We have to develop to survive in the long run, but also fight to survive in the short run. These things are not mutually exclusive, in fact they form a prudent overall strategy with high probability of success. The problem is that either sub-strategy by itself will not be enough. Again, there is no contradiction.

They would say it's wrong. Are you morally neutral on slavery and genocide against Native Americans too? Are you claiming that the US hasn't rejected that part of its history, and that such methods are culturally acceptable today?

They would not say anything because they are dead - subject of our "impeccable moral traditions" which you spoke of so highly.

Rejected the past? How convenient. First survive and prosper by violence, then reject it and wash your hands. To be in full tradition, we should nuke and then repent again. No, thanks. I'd rather be "morally neutral" than conveniently amnesic, blissfully ignorant, or simply hypocritical.

And herein lies your problem: You're equating Osama's terrorist attacks with the entire Muslim world. That is wrongheaded. Osama doesn't have a country, because no one wants him. The vast majority of Muslims are NOT behind terrorism. So responding to Osama by nuking a bunch of muslim civilians would be a huge mistake. It would be like carpet bombing Polish civillians (since they didn't resist the invasion!) in order to punish them for Nazi germany's takeover.

Those societies are steeped in superstition, ignorance, poverty, hopelessness, envy, inferiority complex, and violence. They are the crooked ugly rotting tree that bears the bitter fruit of terrorism. We may be crushing and burning the fruit, but so long as the tree is there to produce it, it is like watering the desert. It is not OBL that is killing GI's in Iraq right now, it is tends of thousands of new terrorists turning and swarming locally and from neighboring countries. Any insurgency is impossible without internal support. To compare this situation to Nazis in Poland is simply unfair towards the Polish.

shootinstudent
October 10, 2005, 12:46 AM
CAnnoneer,

Yet again we have a contradiction. Look at: They did not resort to nukes over them and that is exactly as much as I need for my argument. Could not do anything? How convenient. So, we choose when we can and when we cannot do anything. This is blowing huge holes in your own arguments.
All of that would hurt them too. You can't be serious. Places like Russia or China hurting their interests over idealistic concepts?

Russia and China wouldn't hurt their interests over idealistic concepts, yet they refused to use nukes to crush the rebellions that you claim could've been ended with genocide. Since I think we both agree that neither regime will pull punches in the name of human rights, what do you think the explanation is for their losing territory and control instead of using nukes to stop the degradation of their empires? Do you think that the costs in backlash might be a consideration?

My argument is simply that we generally do not have the time required to develop tech fast enough to save everybody.

As has been argued continuously for the past 300 years. It always turns out to be wrong. Since you're talking about discoveries that haven't happened yet, it's not possible to say with any certainty whatsoever what they will and will not provide. No real leg to stand on there for you.

No, thanks. I'd rather be "morally neutral" than conveniently amnesic, blissfully ignorant, or simply hypocritical.

Have fun in the ranks of Nazis, social darwinists, communists, and other folk throughout history who have rejected morality and any appreciation for individual rights whatsoever. Please note before doing so where these movements currently are in terms of development and prestige...

Speaking of "morally neutral" policy, that's a large part of what landed us in the situation we are in right now. Had the US and Britain not paid for the known-terrorist Wahabists to unseat the Hashemites in Arabia, we might not have the problems we do now with the spread of radicalism...but at that time, they were thinking only about oil, and the Wahabists offered the cheapest price with the quickest means of dominating the fields (terrorism). See what happens when you only worry about "practicality" and your need for oil?

Those societies are steeped in superstition, ignorance, poverty, hopelessness, envy, inferiority complex, and violence. They are the crooked ugly rotting tree that bears the bitter fruit of terrorism. We may be crushing and burning the fruit, but so long as the tree is there to produce it, it is like watering the desert. It is not OBL that is killing GI's in Iraq right now, it is tends of thousands of new terrorists turning and swarming locally and from neighboring countries.

You are missing the point again. "Those societies" are not one unit that acts all for the same purpose. What drives insurgents to fight in Iraq isn't what drives Somalians to fight, isn't what drives the non-Muslim rulers in Syria to support terrorists, isn't what drives the Palestinians to fight, isn't what drives the Taliban and its Pashtun (ie, not muslim) legal system to fight. You're grouping together 1.2 billion people and then making a claim about what "they" all do, which, if you are a student of history...you know will almost always be a gross overgeneralization that results in falsehood. To compare this situation to Nazis in Poland is simply unfair towards the Polish.
Muslims are as much and in many ways more so victims of terrorism than anyone else. The comparison stands, as does the point, which was that your idea of killing all muslims to root out Osama is like killing Polish to punish the Nazis. You're attacking a completely unrelated group in order to punish a group that happens to occupy a few of the same land spaces.

matis
October 10, 2005, 01:44 AM
Shootinstudent, you are, in my opinion, naive.

Civilization is a thin veneer everywhere. It so happens that it is much thinner in the Islamic world than it is here.

Any morality that requires us to absorb what the Islamo-fascists dish out until we are destroyed -- is NOT moral!

"Collateral damage" to civilians is deplorable -- even when the enemy purposely operates from among civilians so as to paralyze us. They do this BECAUSE they know that we are more moral than they are. Trouble is they see our morality as weakness. If you pay attention to how they fight, and to whom they attack (predominantly civilians), and what they do to those they catch (try Ogrish.com to get around the censorship of our wonderful media) -- then it should be plain to you that they are indeed barbarians.

But suicide is also immoral. No true morality requires it in our dealings with each other. And so we should not commit it. Peace is by far preferable. But if innocent civilians must die -- then let them be theirs rather than ours.

Given the tactics used by the Islamo-fascists, it is inevitable that we will have to step up our attacks against them even though more of their civilians will die as a result.


In my atheist days I used to wonder how G-d could destroy 2 cities full of people when surely many of them must have been innocent.

I have since learned that Torah REQUIRES one to speak out against injustice and that it is a sin to "remain silent before your brother's blood."

Like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomora, a rapidly increasing percentage of Muslims support the Islamo-fascists among them. They rarely rise up against them and by their silence, never mind their approval, they are complicit.


Your "speaking out", however, is not IMO moral. You carry on like a child, or like one who (thinks he) knows the letter of the law, but without a clue as to the spirit of the law.

And to the extent your ideas influence others, YOU are immoral. Endangering the victim while defending the aggressor is not most people's idea of moral behavior.

And setting up no-win scenarios for us to follow does not make you morally pure. If you weren't a student, I'd say it makes you stupid.


The world is a beautiful but also a dangerous place. We must fight to maintain whatever we have gained. There are ALWAYS others who would take it away if they could. And if they see our value system as endangering their own, then they would (gladly in the case of this enemy) kill us.

As Bountyhunter amply demonstrates with the many articles he has posted, the Saudis are at the center of the terror. And mosques, even here in the States are being taken over by Wahhabiist hot-heads, financed with Saudi money. There is hatred of Jews and of Americans being preached every Friday -- in our midst. "First the Saturday people; then the Sunday people," right?

We have the right to defend ourselves -- whatever that might take.

We have the right to buy oil. I notice that the leftist fools who like to shout at demonstratations, "No war for oil!" have usually driven cars to get there and will drive them home again when their tantrums have subsided. If not for our life-blood, oil, what should we fight for? Morality?


I am not saying that it is a good idea to bomb Mecca and Medina or to bomb Arab cities into parking lots. But neither am I sure that the time might not come when some truly draconian measures might not become necessary to our survival.


Even the more moral civilizations do what they must and justify it as they go along. No morality in the world could have prevented the Europeans from taking North America from the Indians (I have read that evidence has been unearthed that the Indians also took the land -- by invading an earlier people).


I, too, have read Guns, Germs and Steel. Although Diamond may not have intended this, I concluded that a civilization technologically as superior as the Europeans were to the stone-age Indians -- would always find a way to justify defeating them and taking their land.

And anyway, who is to say, really, that that was a bad thing. What contriutions to the welfare of mankind were the Indians capable of making? And what has America contributed? (Please don't miss your cue now. Isn't this where the children should come in braying about ends justifying means and so on.)


So enough already with your moralizing. Perhaps you need to imagine your siblings or your parents having their heads sawn off alive, while you are forced to watch. Or something. I'm not sure what it takes to snap someone into reality. Probably, in your case, just the passage of time.


May you, and the rest of us be granted enough time to grow and learn in peace. And if not in peace, then in victory.


matis

shootinstudent
October 10, 2005, 02:01 AM
Matis,

In my opinion, you have not read my posts. Here's one of the things you said:


Given the tactics used by the Islamo-fascists, it is inevitable that we will have to step up our attacks against them even though more of their civilians will die.

Your fundamental mistake here is saying that the people of the Islamic world are "their civilians." They are not. The vast majority of Muslims do not support terror, and there are even more Muslim victims of terrorism than there are American and western ones. It is absolutely false and betrays a total unwillingness to take an honest look at the Islamic world to claim otherwise. Killing random Muslim civilians is killing more of the victims of terrorism, not "their civilians."

Hence, I am not asking us to absorb Islamo-Fascism. I'm asking us to be reasonably intelligent adults and recognize that it is a tiny minority within the Islamic world, just like abortion clinic bombers are in the christian world.


I have since learned that Torah REQUIRES one to speak out against injustice and that it is a sin to "remain silent before your brother's blood."

If you have religious justification for bombing cities full of civilians, I suggest you find a Wahabist theological group to discuss that with. There you will be welcomed, but I'm not interested in discussing theological justifications for murder.
And to the extent your ideas influence others, YOU are immoral. Endangering the victim while defending the aggressor is not most people's idea of moral behavior.

See above. The average Muslim is not an aggressor. The aggressors are terrorists, who are a tiny minority that are not supported by the majority. If we attack innocent civilians because of terrorism, we become the aggressor, because we are attacking people who have done us no harm.


As Bountyhunter amply demonstrates with the many articles he has posted, the Saudis are at the center of the terror. And mosques, even here in the States are being taken over by Wahhabiist hot-heads, financed with Saudi money. There is hatred of Jews and of Americans being preached every Friday -- in our midst. "First the Saturday people; then the Sunday people," right?

You're right, Wahabists are radicals. And they are also a small minority of the Muslim world, who have only got the strength they do because Western oil dollars keep flowing into their hands. Now can you imagine how large their support base would be if we convince the Muslim world that their claims about Israel and the US wanting to kill all muslims are true by bombing civilian cities, most of which are not primarily occupied by wahabist terrorists?

Or, turn the argument around. The state of Israel clearly threatens the existence of the Jihadi way of life. Does that justify "drastic measures" from their perspective? Would you say that it's actually rational to support attacks on Israel if you are a Palestinian, because "drastic measures" are necessary to fight off the militarily superior state of Israel?

So enough already with your moralizing. Perhaps you need to imagine your siblings or your parents having their heads cut off alive, while you are forced to watch. Or something. I'm not sure what it takes to snap someone into reality. Probably, in your case, just the passage of time.

This is a classic recipe for fallacious reasoning and immoral vengeance. If a member of Al Qaeda kills a family member, I'll hate Al Qaeda. What I will not do is pick up a rifle and start shooting little girls in headscarves because I think that anyone who remotely resembles the cast of Osama's videos is dangerous. Likewise, I won't travel to Palestine and board a bus to start shooting people on their way to work in order to draw attention to the "evil islamic world."


Your "speaking out", however, is not IMO moral. You carry on like a child, or like one who (thinks he) knows the letter of the law, but without a clue as to the spirit of the law.

If speaking out against genocide and absolutely evil attacks on civilians is childish, go ahead and hand me a pacifier. If you know something about the "spirit of the law" that I don't, please tell me what it is and in what way it justifies killing millions of civillians just because they read the same religious book that Osama Bin Laden does.

matis
October 10, 2005, 02:44 AM
shootinstudent said:
The vast majority of Muslims do not support terror, and there are even more Muslim victims of terrorism than there are American and western ones.
______________________________________________________________

First of all I do not agree with you. From the speech given by the Indonesian President as he stepped down, to what I read is published in the press and the media ALL over the Muslim world, Jews, especially, and Americans are villified and hated. They circulate the same loathsome literature that the Nazis did, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc.


quote:
It is absolutely false and betrays a total unwillingness to take an honest look at the Islamic world to claim otherwise. Killing random Muslim civilians is killing more of the victims of terrorism, not "their civilians."
_________________________________________________________


Second, even if you were correct, and you are NOT, we would still have the right to defend ourselves. We have no moral obligation to allow the enemy to destroy us. That truly innocent civilians might die is doubly tragic. But, again, we have no moral obligation to let ourselves be destroyed. "Better them than us," may be a tragic choice for us to make, but it is not an immoral one.


Some time back, the Arabs, who made a practise of taking hostages among Westerners, made the mistake of taking Russian hostages.

The Russians turned over heaven and earth to find and catch the perpetrators. Then they cut off their genitals and stuffed them into their mouths and sent the bodies back to the Arab side.

That ended the taking of Russian hostages.

Was that moral of the Russians to do? Probably not by your standards. Personally I have no problem with it. I call it justice. How many lives did they save by doing whatever it took to end the hostage taking business?

And it sure beats handwringing.



Quote:
The average Muslim is not an aggressor. The aggressors are terrorists, who are a tiny minority that are not supported by the majority. If we attack innocent civilians because of terrorism, we become the aggressor, because we are attacking people who have done us no harm.
___________________________________________________________

You sure bend over backwards to depict the Muslims as innocent. If the average Muslim is not an aggressor, then perhaps he should unite with others like himself and stop the aggressors among them. These aggressors are, after all, so tiny a minority. Shouldn't be too difficult.

And besides: by allowing this "tiny minority" of aggressors to operate against us they ARE doing us harm. If this vast and so innocent majority is so wonderful, why don't they take steps to cut out the cancer from among them. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Oh, excuse me, that was one of OUR guys.




Quote:
If speaking out against genocide and absolutely evil attacks on civilians is childish, go ahead and hand me a pacifier.
________________________________________________
You keep using words like murder and genocide. I am not advocating genocide, but self-defence. Self-defence is NOT murder.

What color pacifier would you prefer?


matis

Gordon Fink
October 10, 2005, 03:02 AM
Wow! The cultural ignorance and historical myopia is getting a little thick in here. :uhoh:

~G. Fink

shootinstudent
October 10, 2005, 03:11 AM
First of all I do not agree with you. From the speech given by the Indonesian President as he stepped down, to what I read is published in the press and the media ALL over the Muslim world, Jews, especially, and Americans are villified and hated. They circulate the same loathsome literature that the Nazis did, including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc.

Sorry, but we here in America don't believe that it's justifiable to kill people because of speeches that they give or opinions that they have, no matter how radical.

On top of this, let's look at where this logic would lead us...did the Israeli soldier who stepped on a bus and shot some palestinians to protest the Gaza pullout speak for all of Israel? Does the fact that some people in the Jewish community call for attacks on Muslim civilians mean that they are actively working to wipe out Islam, and therefore deserve to be killed? I don't understand why it is so incredibly difficult for some people to recognize that "some bad" does not mean "all bad," except when it applies only to the group with which they are most familiar.

Second, even if you were correct, and you are NOT, we would still have the right to defend ourselves. We have no moral obligation to allow the enemy to destroy us.
You are missing the point yet again. Killing a bunch of civillians who have not spent a minute building a bomb or sending money for bombs to be built is not going to help us survive. It will be our destruction, as it will convince an enormous number of people that the terrorists are correct, and they really do have something to fear from the west. Not a smart move.



The Russians turned over heaven and earth to find and catch the perpetrators. Then they cut off their genitals and stuffed them into their mouths and sent the bodies back to the Arab side.

That ended the taking of Russian hostages.


I guess that's why Russia has been so successful in Afghanistan and Chechnya, because of its total and complete lack of respect for any bounds in warfare.

Wait a minute....what's happening in Chechnya to the Russians? What happened in Afghanistan?


You sure bend over backwards to depict the Muslims as innocent. If the average Muslim is not an aggressor, then perhaps he should unite with others like himself and stop the aggressors among them. These aggressors are, after all, so tiny a minority. Shouldn't be too difficult.
For the same reasons that terrorists can operate in the US without getting caught, they can do so in third world countries with weak governments. They don't go around advertising their secret bomb making locations, and the terrorists that we do catch in the middle east, we catch because someone has informed. Muslims are helping and risking their lives every day to do it, which is more than I can say for a lot of the people I see talking about how we should "bomb Mekkah!" to stop terrorism.

This is really a non-argument, because by most accounts Europe and China aren't doing as much to help the US fight terrorism as they could either. Does their silence justify a US attack in order to spur them into action??? Or to punish them for doing us harm by "allowing via silence" for terrorism to continue?

You keep using words like murder and genocide. I am not advocating genocide, but self-defence. Self-defence is NOT murder.

What color pacifier would you prefer?

Killing people who have done you no harm, on purpose, is murder. I don't care if you call it self defense.

Make that pacifier red white and blue.

matis
October 10, 2005, 03:39 AM
shootinstudent said:
because by most accounts Europe and China aren't doing as much to help the US fight terrorism as they could either. Does their silence justify a US attack in order to spur them into action??? Or to punish them for doing us harm by "allowing via silence" for terrorism to continue?
__________________________________________________________________

Very poor analogy, shootin. It might if their silence was accompanied by attacks from their soil. And if we thought we could win in that scenario. And I wouldn't advocate doing so to punish them so much as to deter our attackers.

Isn't that what Bush said in his speech after 9-11? "...whoever harbors terrorists.... You do remember 9-11, don't you? You know, with all the jumpers, their bodies tumbling down, some holding hands. All those dead firemen and police and office workers, Pentagon workers, airline passengers. You do remember, don't you?

The Muslims aren't just silent. They happen to be where the action is. Life can be tough, sometimes.


It seems to me, shootinstudent that your arguments, such as they are, tend more in the direction of preventing war altogether. As if THAT's likely.

You keep setting up situations that are for us -- no-win. Whatever we do, the Muslims have us check-mated. And that you call morality.

I say that morality is meant to keep us alive, not to commit suicide.

You know like in Fiddler on the Roof: "To life, to life, l'chaim (which means, to life, naturally)".

I say that the best defense is an all-guns blazing offense. End the threat as quickly as possible. Have respect for yourself and your right to exist and prosper. Harm no one. But let those who would threaten you see that you are strong and willing to use your strength if necessary.

That way, lies peace. And morality. Or at least as much as we're gonna get in this world.

(See my signature below).


Red, white and blue? There may be hope for you, after all, especially if you suck on it for awhile. You'll probably grow up some day. Maybe when you get away from all those America-hating, leftist professors. Who did you say taught you, Noam Chomski?



matis

shootinstudent
October 10, 2005, 04:03 AM
The Muslims aren't just silent. They happen to be where the action is. Life can be tough, sometimes.

As I suspected, the "if they live there, they must be guilty too!" line. I guess all New Yorkers are guilty for whatever crimes the mafia commits there, and should be sentenced accordingly. What's that, not justified? Oh well.."life can be tough."

It seems to me, shootinstudent that your arguments, such as they are, tend more in the direction of preventing war altogether. As if THAT's likely.


I'd like to see one post of mine where I imply that no war is ever permissible. "It's wrong to intentionally bomb civilians just to kill millions and scare the rest into submission" does not mean "no war is ever justified."

You keep setting up situations that are for us -- no-win. Whatever we do, the Muslims have us check-mated. And that you call morality.

Wrong. The only people setting us up for a "no win" situation here are those who want us to take the route of the Russians and start killing indiscriminately just to demonstrate our "resolve" (I call it willingness to be savages.) That is surely a path to destruction and defeat, as your own example of Russia should suffice to prove.

"the Muslims" are good people who are now in large numbers risking their lives to fight terrorism in Iraq, and to inform on terrorism in other countries as well. If you want to drive a wedge between us, you're setting us up for an insurmountable problem.


Red, white and blue? There may be hope for you, after all, especially if you suck on it for awhile. You'll probably grow up some day. Maybe when you get away from all those America-hating, leftist professors. Who did you say taught you, Noam Chomski?

If I had chosen StaffSgtPsychoKiller as a screename, and still posted what I have, you wouldn't have this ad hom attack avenue. That's because it's totally unrelated to what I'm posting, and has everything to do with some sick and twisted idea that speaking out against using Nuclear weapons on civilians is a peacenik thing to do.

I've made my point and am checking out...killing civilians, bad. I hope that any Muslims or Muslim gun owners who cross this thread will recognize that, just like terrorists are a minority in Islam, people who want to nuke Islam off the face of the earth are a minority of gun owners.

Art Eatman
October 10, 2005, 09:44 AM
What I see in way-too-many threads like this is that people say, "If A, then B," and a reader jumps to the conclusion that the poster is ADVOCATING such action. This leads to a rebuttal in the form of accusation of evil toward the alleged advocator. Bummer.

This particular thread has a bunch of Olympic jumpers...

Which is why it's getting closed.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "I Guess This Means the Invasion of Saudi Arabia is a "GO"!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!