Saudi Arms Deal

[EasySkankin]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21073


It would be the single largest foreign arms deal in United States history.

Pending congressional approval, the Obama administration plans to sell $60 billion in advanced aircraft and sophisticated weaponry to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia . Add $30 billion in proposed enhancements to the country’s navy and ballistic missile-defense systems, and the result is one huge jobs program, further deterioration in Saudi-Iranian relations and heightened tension in the Persian Gulf —all calculated endpoints....



The agreement would authorize Riyadh to buy 84 new F-15 fighter jets, upgrade another 70 and purchase three types of attack helicopters: 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds. If Congress makes no significant modifications and Saudi Arabia opts for the entire package, a $90 billion deal to allegedly help the Kingdom counter Iranian influence is in the offing...



Anthony Cordesman, defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies superficially concluded that the anticipated sale will “ … help give Saudi Arabia the capability to convince Iran that it can't use missiles or air power against Saudi Arabia or its neighbors.”

That might hold true if anyone seriously believed Iran was foolish enough to contemplate the use of military force against its Arab neighbors. In fact, it is arguably Iran who ought to be wary of Saudi Arabia .

As The Sunday Times reported in a June 2010 article titled “Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites,” U.S. defense sources stated that Saudi Arabia had agreed to stand down its air defenses and allow Israel use of a narrow stretch of airspace should they decide to conduct bombing raids into Iran.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way … This has all been done with the agreement of the [ U.S. ] State Department,” said one source.
Just shameful...

[saysmydoctor]

I am skeptical of the Saudis actually allowing Israeli aircraft into their airspace. Hmmmm.

[deFobbed14yrs]

The fuck?

Ok so give weapons to people who housed the terrorists all so a country that shouldn't be a country can get airspace?

[Yontsey]

It's whatever. This shit happens all the time. Russia, Afghanistan, Taiwan, ect.

[bridgeofeldin]

I think Obama is just trying to win cred with angry Republicans. He doesn't want to appear like a wuss against Iran, and maybe that $60 billion could go to the deficit. Democratic presidents always disappoint me in foreign affairs

[PlacesToGo]

I am skeptical of the Saudis actually allowing Israeli aircraft into their airspace. Hmmmm.

you shouldnt be skeptical at all. The saudi kings have historically been interested in supporting the United States in order to encourage free market economy within the country. Proof of their support and lack of general islamic fundamentalism within Saudi Arabia is the fact that the US is allowed to have military bases within in the country (which has Mecca, the holiest land to the Muslims).

[PlacesToGo]

On another note, I'm deeply disappointed in Saudi Arabia's allowance for the Israeli military to use airspace. It is something that will go down as shameful for the middle east. It is a clear sign that though public opinion regarding palestian as shifted in the last 10 years, Israel has still managed to divide the muslim world successfully by using the United States.

[PlacesToGo]

The fuck?

Ok so give weapons to people who housed the terrorists all so a country that shouldn't be a country can get airspace?

Though I agree with the latter part of your statement, I have to say that many US citizens only infer things in regards to Saudi Arabia. I don't mean to sound rude by any stretch, but if people did a little research on Saudi Arabian government policy they would find that the country is overwhelmingly supportive of the United States.

[DrStrong]

I work directly with the Saudi Arabian Oil Company(SAMREF)...The King even showed up here before!

Not all Saudi's are bad...

[Jason Tate]

Nothing new. We do this all the time.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Though I agree with the latter part of your statement, I have to say that many US citizens only infer things in regards to Saudi Arabia. I don't mean to sound rude by any stretch, but if people did a little research on Saudi Arabian government policy they would find that the country is overwhelmingly supportive of the United States.

No I know Saudi Arabia isn't half bad lol, my suitemate's dad goes the all the time and I know I do. I was just annoyed this morning (i had philosophy with a professor i despise) so i took my anger out on the Saudis lol.

[Love As Arson]

It's cool to sell weaponry to brown people, just so long as anything related to them, like maybe Mosques, aren't in the country. Cool.

[Zeran]

I think Obama is just trying to win cred with angry Republicans. He doesn't want to appear like a wuss against Iran, and maybe that $60 billion could go to the deficit. Democratic presidents always disappoint me in foreign affairs
how do you feel about republican presidents in foreign affairs?

[Zeran]

It's cool to sell weaponry to brown people, just so long as anything related to them, like maybe Mosques, aren't in the country. Cool.
but...but....saudi arabia doesn't have any synagogues or churches!!!!!

[saysmydoctor]

you shouldnt be skeptical at all. The saudi kings have historically been interested in supporting the United States in order to encourage free market economy within the country. Proof of their support and lack of general islamic fundamentalism within Saudi Arabia is the fact that the US is allowed to have military bases within in the country (which has Mecca, the holiest land to the Muslims).
Lack of Islamic fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia? Are we talking about the same Saudi Arabia?

Also, the US =/= Israel

The Saudi family just know where its bread is buttered. So again, I'm skeptical.

[Simulcast]

It's cool to sell weaponry to brown people, just so long as anything related to them, like maybe Mosques, aren't in the country. Cool.

Is there a ban on mosques now?

[PlacesToGo]

Lack of Islamic fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia? Are we talking about the same Saudi Arabia?

Also, the US =/= Israel

The Saudi family just know where its bread is buttered. So again, I'm skeptical.

You are too stupid (and I base this on your clear refusal to A. Research B. admit you don't really know anything about Saudi Arabia) to argue with.

[Simulcast]

you shouldnt be skeptical at all. The saudi kings have historically been interested in supporting the United States in order to encourage free market economy within the country. Proof of their support and lack of general islamic fundamentalism within Saudi Arabia is the fact that the US is allowed to have military bases within in the country (which has Mecca, the holiest land to the Muslims).

No. The Saudi Kings are extremely supportive of radical elements of Islam.

[saysmydoctor]

You are too stupid (and I base this on your clear refusal to A. Research B. admit you don't really know anything about Saudi Arabia) to argue with.
I've done plenty of research and know enough about Saudi Arabia. Try attacking my actual argument rather than me this time.

[saysmydoctor]

No. The Saudi Kings are extremely supportive of radical elements of Islam.
Even giving them money...generally the money we provide them with. I mean, it's pretty well-known that Saudi Arabia is about as two-faced an "ally" as they come (not that I don't blame them).

Next, he'll be defending Pakistan.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm still laughing at this. I mean, Saudi Arabia is a country that considers the Qu'ran its Constitution. But that's not islamic fundamentalism at all.

God, and I'm too stupid to argue with because I don't research things.

[Simulcast]

Even giving them money...generally the money we provide them with. I mean, it's pretty well-known that Saudi Arabia is about as two-faced an "ally" as they come (not that I don't blame them).

Next, he'll be defending Pakistan.

Yeah, I thought he was joking initially.

[PlacesToGo]

I'm still laughing at this. I mean, Saudi Arabia is a country that considers the Qu'ran its Constitution. But that's not islamic fundamentalism at all.

God, and I'm too stupid to argue with because I don't research things.


While I was writing a long response to refute your agrument (now lets be clear that your only argument was "they are fundamentalists") you posted the jem above. The very fact that you use the adoption of Quranic laws for the constitution tells me you know little about the execution of government operations, particularly in foreign policy, and that you are a MORON for linking quranic law and islamic fundamentalism. you have now went from being stupid in my book to an ignorant dumb fuck.

[Jason Tate]

Can we just welcome "PlacesToGo" to the "trolls the political forum for no good reason" list and move on?

[saysmydoctor]

While I was writing a long response to refute your agrument (now lets be clear that your only argument was "they are fundamentalists") you posted the jem above. The very fact that you use the adoption of Quranic laws for the constitution tells me you know little about the execution of government operations, particularly in foreign policy, and that you are a MORON for linking quranic law and islamic fundamentalism. you have now went from being stupid in my book to an ignorant dumb fuck.
Yeah, you're definitely joking. There's no way you're serious right now.

[saysmydoctor]

Can we just welcome "PlacesToGo" to the "trolls the political forum for no good reason" list and move on?
Never seen him post before. Duly noted. Moving on.

[Love As Arson]

Is there a ban on mosques now?

I was referring to the fact that people are upset with the cultural center, but have no problem with this.

[Jason Tate]

Never seen him post before. Duly noted. Moving on.
He's been trolling a lot lately.

suprisingly interesting. The Na Na Na doesn't annoy me at all, i think it does a good job of getting the listener to appreciate the aesthetic elements of their new album.

what a fuck tard. act like a normal person and give a normal speech if you want to do something positive.

this is untrue.

[PlacesToGo]

Can we just welcome "PlacesToGo" to the "trolls the political forum for no good reason" list and move on?

wait i don't understand how I can be considered a troll?

I assume anyone familiar with Middle Eastern policy and relations understands that, while Saudi Arabia is complicated in the mere fact that the majority of Muslims in the middle east resist western cooperation and support Islamic fundamentalism based on the Israeli/Palestinan conflict, the fact is that out of the entire middle east Saudi Arabian government action has been overwhelmingly supportavie of a mutualy beneficial relationship with the United States. No country that is "an Islamic fundamentalist state" would agree to israeli air rights, US military bases, and concessions to oil prices in US military actions.

[Simulcast]

I was referring to the fact that people are upset with the cultural center, but have no problem with this.

I know. I don't see how the two are related though, especially since that mosque is a one-off thing.

[PlacesToGo]

He's been trolling a lot lately.

saying the MCR song was suprisingly interesting....is trolling? I don't understand.

[Simulcast]

wait i don't understand how I can be considered a troll?

I assume anyone familiar with Middle Eastern policy and relations understands that, while Saudi Arabia is complicated in the mere fact that the majority of Muslims in the middle east resist western cooperation and support Islamic fundamentalism based on the Israeli/Palestinan conflict, the fact is that out of the entire middle east Saudi Arabian government action has been overwhelmingly supportavie of a mutualy beneficial relationship with the United States. No country that is "an Islamic fundamentalist state" would agree to israeli air rights, US military bases, and concessions to oil prices in US military actions.

A country with a love of money would. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Jason Tate]

Islamic fundamentalism (Arabic: usul, the "fundamentals") is a term used to describe religious ideologies seen as advocating a return to the "fundamentals" of Islam: the Quran and the Sunnah.

Is this not the definition of what Saudi Arabia is after?

[bridgeofeldin]

how do you feel about republican presidents in foreign affairs?

I'm disappointed in Republican presidents' foreign affairs too, but at least Republicans will directly tell you that they are going to be unilateral and aggressive. Democrats tend to criticize the Republican doctrines before elections, but they always end up choosing some method of military action. We've seen this in both the Carter and Clinton administrations, and now Obama's administration. In fairness, Obama made it clear during his campaign that he was going to wage war in Afghanistan. He did, however, also promise to improve our international status with diplomacy - especially with Iran.

[PlacesToGo]

Islamic fundamentalism (Arabic: usul, the "fundamentals") is a term used to describe religious ideologies seen as advocating a return to the "fundamentals" of Islam: the Quran and the Sunnah.

Is this not the definition of what Saudi Arabia is after?



Let me first start off by saying, you know as well as I, that providing a dictionary definition is usually a deflector in an argument. In this particular case, while your definition states something obvious, the use of the word fundamentalism in general conversation usually suggests a host of things: One being for instance "Islamic fundamentalism actively aims to destroy US integrity in the middle east." That sort of statement is wholly different then "returning to the fundamentals of Islam" because A. the fundamentals of islam are up for debate (as with all major religons).

So in your statement aren't Saudi Arabia aiming for a return to fundamentals of islam?
one could take that as meaning they aim to turn to radical islamic state that aims to align with the goals of terrorist operations or one could take it as saying Saudi Arabia aims to have the countries law reflect Quranic law and principles (most of which have nothing to do with the threads of terrorist identity)

And I also should add that, privatization of certain government and non government entities within Saudi Arabia, specifically as it has to do with the free market, is polar opposite of the Quran and thus it should be understood that a large part of adopting quranic laws are traditional and/or based on domestic interaction, rather than foreign policy.

[Jason Tate]

Hey, don't use what the phrase actually means ... let's make up a definition based on what I think the phrase would mean in a general conversation.

[bridgeofeldin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Osama bin Laden thought the House of Saud wasn't conservative enough, and among other things, corrupt?

[PlacesToGo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Osama bin Laden thought the House of Saud wasn't conservative enough, and among other things, corrupt?

Saudi Arabia kicked Osama Bin Laden out of the country for a host of reasons, one of them being his fundamentalist approach.

[PlacesToGo]

Hey, don't use what the phrase actually means ... let's make up a definition based on what I think the phrase would mean in a general conversation.

that was weak.

[PlacesToGo]

A country with a love of money would. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is my favorite post in the thread for its hilarity.

[Jason Tate]

that was weak.
You don't get to change what something means simply because you were wrong. Adding "actively aims to destroy US integrity in the middle east" to a definition - is just south of flat out making one up.

[Simulcast]

This is my favorite post in the thread for its hilarity.

Oh, so you know then about the extravagant lifestyle of the Saudi Royal family (http://www.carbonated.tv/blog/Excessive+Excesses). I assume that's part of the "fundamentalism" they espouse.

[PlacesToGo]

You don't get to change what something means simply because you were wrong. Adding "actively aims to destroy US integrity in the middle east" to a definition - is just south of flat out making one up.

so you are telling me that when people in this thread and in the majority of the united states say anything about "Islamic Fundamentalists" they are simply going by the dictionary definition and are not suggesting anything else. Because if that were the case Islamic, Christian, Jewish Fundamentalists should have little to no negative connotation towards them.

getting away from the argument is a waste of time. To be called a troll because I challenged the general view of the Saudi Government identity in foreign relations is lame to

[bridgeofeldin]

Oh, so you know then about the extravagant lifestyle of the Saudi Royal family (http://www.carbonated.tv/blog/Excessive+Excesses). I assume that's part of the "fundamentalism" they espouse.

Hit the nail on the head. House of Saud cares more about money than ideology, hence we're able to buy our relations with them.

[Jason Tate]

so you are telling me that when people in this thread and in the majority of the united states say anything about "Islamic Fundamentalists" they are simply going by the dictionary definition and are not suggesting anything else. Because if that were the case Islamic, Christian, Jewish Fundamentalists should have little to no negative connotation towards them.

getting away from the argument is a waste of time. To be called a troll because I challenged the general view of the Saudi Government identity in foreign relations is lame to
They'd still have plenty of negative connotations with them. The definition is scary in itself. Without adding any qualifications to it.

[PlacesToGo]

Hit the nail on the head. House of Saud cares more about money than ideology, hence we're able to buy our relations with them.

A. if you really believe they care more about money than ideology. then no one should be calling them fundamentalists (which was his previous assertion)

B. don't you think its a little too simplistic to view the saudi government and its motivation strictly on the spending of the saudi family? it's short sighted in my opinion.

[bridgeofeldin]

A. if you really believe they care more about money than ideology. then no one should be calling them fundamentalists (which was his previous assertion)

B. don't you think its a little too simplistic to view the saudi government and its motivation strictly on the spending of the saudi family? it's short sighted in my opinion.

I personally never said the House of Saud were "fundamentalists." They aren't as extreme in their ideology as terrorists. Hence why they kicked out Osama bin Laden. Fundamentalism, as your debate with the other guys suggests, is a vague term. For my purpose, I'm avoiding it. Because the point is that they do in fact care more about money. This can't be argued. bin Laden recognized this fact himself and is the basis of his hatred for them. We can ally ourselves with them not because they follow a somewhat conservative Muslim ideology, but because they are greedy. The House of Saud doesn't care about American interests, only their own.

[PlacesToGo]

They'd still have plenty of negative connotations with them. The definition is scary in itself. Without adding any qualifications to it.

see heres what I meant by definitions being used as a deflector. Returning to the fundamentals of a religion is not the same thing as what is generally referred to as religious fundamentalists because one would argue that different people would define the fundamentals of each religion in very different ways. So no, its not really true that they would have negative connotations firstly, and secondly more to our point of this thread - a person saying Saudi Arabia is fundamentalist and thus not to be trusted - for me and including actual qualified foreign policy analysts is an unfair/untrue assessment.

[Jason Tate]

see heres what I meant by definitions being used as a deflector. Returning to the fundamentals of a religion is not the same thing as what is generally referred to as religious fundamentalists because one would argue that different people would define the fundamentals of each religion in very different ways. So no, its not really true that they would have negative connotations firstly, and secondly more to our point of this thread - a person saying Saudi Arabia is fundamentalist and thus not to be trusted - for me and including actual qualified foreign policy analysts is an unfair/untrue assessment.
Yes they would. Because the fundamentals of those religions are fucked up. So returning to them ... would be negative.

I can barely tell what the rest of your post means.

[PlacesToGo]

Yes they would. Because the fundamentals of those religions are fucked up. So returning to them ... would be negative.

I can barely tell what the rest of your post means.

hmm well seeing as a I doubt you posses a quality that no one else in this world has to accurately define the fundamentals of those religions I cant take what you are saying as the truth.

anyways, whatever.

[Jason Tate]

hmm well seeing as a I doubt you posses a quality that no one else in this world has to accurately define the fundamentals of those religions I cant take what you are saying as the truth.

anyways, whatever.
You don't think anyone knows what the fundamentals of particular religions are? Is that what you're saying?

[PlacesToGo]

You don't think anyone knows what the fundamentals of particular religions are? Is that what you're saying?

while general definitions do exist the mere fact that religious text is up for interpretation, rewritten multiple times, its hard for a consensus to be had on what the fundamentals of a religion are.

also by your logic of returning to the fundamentals of religion as always being negative, then Liberal/Progressive christians are further away from the fundamentals of their religion and thus less christian than others. Doesn't seem right to me.

[Jason Tate]

while general definitions do exist the mere fact that religious text is up for interpretation, rewritten multiple times, its hard for a consensus to be had on what the fundamentals of a religion are.

also by your logic of returning to the fundamentals of religion as always being negative, then Liberal/Progressive christians are further away from the fundamentals of their religion and thus less christian than others. Doesn't seem right to me.
It's not hard at all. And it's been done plenty of times ... you really don't know what the fundamentals of the major religions are? How? Read them. They're laid out pretty clear.

They are further away from the fundamentals of their religion. I don't know what 'more or less' Christian has to do with anything.

[PlacesToGo]

It's not hard at all. And it's been done plenty of times ... you really don't know what the fundamentals of the major religions are? How? Read them. They're laid out pretty clear.

They are further away from the fundamentals of their religion. I don't know what 'more or less' Christian has to do with anything.

disagree.

[Jason Tate]

disagree.
Clearly, because you're making up what words mean.

[PlacesToGo]

Clearly, because you're making up what words mean.

mmm dont think thats fair to say, but okay.

[Jason Tate]

mmm dont think thats fair to say, but okay.
Mmmm, it's what you're doing. Words have meanings for a reason.

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to specific set of theological doctrines. If you do this with religious texts that are racist, sexist, violent, and homophobic ...

[PlacesToGo]

Mmmm, it's what you're doing. Words have meanings for a reason.

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to specific set of theological doctrines. If you do this with religious texts that are racist, sexist, violent, and homophobic ...

nope, not at all what I was doing, but the nuance in thinking probably went over your head.

[Jason Tate]

nope, not at all what I was doing, but the nuance in thinking probably went over your head.
Was hoping you'd do that. Wrong guy to talk like that with.

[Simulcast]

I go to lunch and miss all the fun.

[maxl92]

Was hoping you'd do that. Wrong guy to talk like that with.

Some very ominous music played in my head as I read this post.

[Love As Arson]

I know. I don't see how the two are related though, especially since that mosque is a one-off thing.
Around the country, towns have been trying to prevent mosques from being built, presumably because Islam is associated with fundamentalism and racist conceptions of North African/Middle Eastern individuals. A story like this comes along, about an ally, who actually does believe those things, who murders homosexuals openly, and there is no outcry. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the politicians and the ideological inconsistency within the factions who require racism as a way to galvanize people and the requirements of the United States' imperial project.

[<*)))><]

I think the only mosque that was really be prevented was the one in New York City. Within in the last year four Mosque have been build in a ten mile radius from my house.

[Simulcast]

Around the country, towns have been trying to prevent mosques from being built, presumably because Islam is associated with fundamentalism and racist conceptions of North African/Middle Eastern individuals. A story like this comes along, about an ally, who actually does believe those things, who murders homosexuals openly, and there is no outcry. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the politicians and the ideological inconsistency within the factions who require racism as a way to galvanize people and the requirements of the United States' imperial project.


Source?

I think you may be blowing that out of proportion. Though I concur about the hypocrisy of politicians.

[Love As Arson]

Source?

I think you may be blowing that out of proportion.

While a high-profile battle rages over a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations.
Related

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., arguments broke out over a planned Muslim center.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”

Feeding the resistance is a growing cottage industry of authors and bloggers — some of them former Muslims — who are invited to speak at rallies, sell their books and testify in churches. Their message is that Islam is inherently violent and incompatible with America.

But they have not gone unanswered. In each community, interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths have defended the mosques. Often, they have been slower to organize than the mosque opponents, but their numbers have usually been larger.

The mosque proposed for the site near ground zero in Lower Manhattan cleared a final hurdle last week before the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg hailed the decision with a forceful speech on religious liberty. While an array of religious groups supported the project, opponents included the Anti-Defamation League, an influential Jewish group, and prominent Republicans like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker.

A smaller controversy is occurring in Temecula, about 60 miles north of San Diego, involving a typical stew of religion, politics and anti-immigrant sentiment. A Muslim community has been there for about 12 years and expanded to 150 families who have outgrown their makeshift worship space in a warehouse, said Mahmoud Harmoush, the imam, a lecturer at California State University, San Bernardino. The group wants to build a 25,000-square-foot center, with space for classrooms and a playground, on a lot it bought in 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html

[Simulcast]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html

I see. I still think you are blowing it our of proportion. These are still isolated incidences, involving a few stupid people acting...stupidly. It's not as if mosque's are being torched all over the country out of a hatred for brown people. The government isn't supporting a wholesale ban on mosques either. I still think this comment:

It's cool to sell weaponry to brown people, just so long as anything related to them, like maybe Mosques, aren't in the country. Cool.

is a little outlandish.

[Love As Arson]

I see. I still think you are blowing it our of proportion. These are still isolated incidences, involving a few stupid people acting...stupidly. It's not as if mosque's are being torched all over the country out of a hatred for brown people.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/anti-muslim-violence

I still think this comment iis a little outlandish.
I was being sarcastic, but my point remains. The right-wing gets upset when moderate Muslims try to build Mosques, but it is permissible to sell weaponry to a regime which actually is radical because it fits their foreign policy perspective.

[Simulcast]

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/category/anti-muslim-violence


I was being sarcastic, but my point remains. The right-wing gets upset when moderate Muslims try to build Mosques, but it is permissible to sell weaponry to a regime which actually is radical because it fits their foreign policy perspective.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes in this country still pale in comparison to Anti-Jewish, even since 9/11. Your welcome to peruse the tables yourself here (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm). So I don't buy this nationwide Islamophobia based on that.

I don't know that the right-wing is happy about the arms deal. I'm not particularly happy about it. Your point is made though. There is not as much hoopla surrounding the arms deal as with the mosque.

Edit: Linked you to only one year. I fixed it.

[Jason Tate]

Latest numbers are from 2008, not 2007.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html

Of 1,732 hate crimes - 7.5 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias. I don't think hate-crimes are indicative of a wider Islamaphobia.

[Simulcast]

Latest numbers are from 2008, not 2007.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html

Of 1,732 hate crimes - 7.5 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias. I don't think hate-crimes are indicative of a wider Islamaphobia.

I agree.

[Skadrist]

A political power play no doubt as Iran's influence in the Middle East has greatly increased during the last decade.

[ParkwayTom]

Was hoping you'd do that. Wrong guy to talk like that with.

Hopefully that means this guy is gone. I've seen arrogant people on AP but this dude gets the gold medal.

[saysmydoctor]

Saudi Arabia kicked Osama Bin Laden out of the country for a host of reasons, one of them being his fundamentalist approach.
GOD, THIS WAS SO FUNNY.

[Love As Arson]

Anti-Muslim hate crimes in this country still pale in comparison to Anti-Jewish, even since 9/11. Your welcome to peruse the tables yourself here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm). So I don't buy this nationwide Islamophobia based on that.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Just because one group is more harassed doesn't mean there is a subsequent decrease in hatred for another. Generally, they're connected by this depiction of them as "the Other". What's more, if you compare the amount of attacks against Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs,etc., with the years before 9-11, one sees a seventeen-fold increase in regards to the amount of attacks.

[Jason Tate]

Hopefully that means this guy is gone. I've seen arrogant people on AP but this dude gets the gold medal.
Yeah. It is. I'm fine with disagreement and debate. But that dude takes it over the top with the shit he says.

[Simulcast]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Just because one group is more harassed doesn't mean there is a subsequent decrease in hatred for another. Generally, they're connected by this depiction of them as "the Other". What's more, if you compare the amount of attacks against Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs,etc., with the years before 9-11, one sees a seventeen-fold increase in regards to the amount of attacks.

Yes, there are a lot of stupid people out there, but my point was that your link doesn't prove a nationwide disdain for those perceived to be "Arab" or "Muslim". The hatred does not exist on the scale you perceive it to.

[Jason Tate]

In spring 2002, according to surveys by Pew, (http://people-press.org/report/647/) just 25% of Americans believed that Islam encourages violence more than other religions. Today that figure stands at 35%. Only 45% voice the opposing view, (that Islam does not encourage violence more than other faiths), and 24% answer "neither/don't know."

In addition, according to Pew's most recent survey, 38% of Americans have a unfavorable opinion of Islam, compared to just 30% who hold a favorable view, and 32% who say they don't know.

[Simulcast]

In spring 2002, according to surveys by Pew, (http://people-press.org/report/647/) just 25% of Americans believed that Islam encourages violence more than other religions. Today that figure stands at 35%. Only 45% voice the opposing view, (that Islam does not encourage violence more than other faiths), and 24% answer "neither/don't know."

In addition, according to Pew's most recent survey, 38% of Americans have a unfavorable opinion of Islam, compared to just 30% who hold a favorable view, and 32% who say they don't know.

Do these figures point to hatred though? I would think the perception of Islam as a violent religion comes from incidences like Ft. Hood, and the Christmas bomber, not to mention the constant violence realized in the Middle East, but I don't necessarily see a correlation to hatred towards Arabs and Muslims (I'm not saying you were implying one).

[Love As Arson]

Yes, there are a lot of stupid people out there, but my point was that your link doesn't prove a nationwide disdain for those perceived to be "Arab" or "Muslim". The hatred does not exist on the scale you perceive it to.
No, it demonstrates that the cultural center isn't an isolated incident, that racism is spreading and being fomented by various individuals on the political scene.

[Midget Pirates]

you shouldnt be skeptical at all. The saudi kings have historically been interested in supporting the United States in order to encourage free market economy within the country. Proof of their support and lack of general islamic fundamentalism within Saudi Arabia is the fact that the US is allowed to have military bases within in the country (which has Mecca, the holiest land to the Muslims).

Though I agree with the latter part of your statement, I have to say that many US citizens only infer things in regards to Saudi Arabia. I don't mean to sound rude by any stretch, but if people did a little research on Saudi Arabian government policy they would find that the country is overwhelmingly supportive of the United States.

just some reading material for you.

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

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32499.pdf

Even giving them money...generally the money we provide them with. I mean, it's pretty well-known that Saudi Arabia is about as two-faced an "ally" as they come (not that I don't blame them).

Next, he'll be defending Pakistan.

bingo

[anamericangod]

Not sure if it was mentioned in this clusterfuck of a thread, but Saudi Arabia has said that the whole "turn the other way and let Israel use our airspace" thing isn't accurate.

[saysmydoctor]

Not sure if it was mentioned in this clusterfuck of a thread, but Saudi Arabia has said that the whole "turn the other way and let Israel use our airspace" thing isn't accurate.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wikiality/images/thumb/d/d2/ICalledIt.jpg/350px-ICalledIt.jpg

Would really love a source for this because that's just fucking perfect.

GUESS I SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE RESEARCH.

[anamericangod]

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wikiality/images/thumb/d/d2/ICalledIt.jpg/350px-ICalledIt.jpg

Would really love a source for this because that's just fucking perfect.

GUESS I SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE RESEARCH.

Lots of random articles about it. It didn't get anywhere near as much publicity as the original story, obviously.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=59902

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article65141.ece

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138017

[Simulcast]

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wikiality/images/thumb/d/d2/ICalledIt.jpg/350px-ICalledIt.jpg

Would really love a source for this because that's just fucking perfect.

GUESS I SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE RESEARCH.

This is the funniest post on the entire internet. GOD I BET YOU DON'T EVEN READ BOOKS.

[EchoPark]

The USA needs Saudi Arabia as an ally.

They have been combating both domestic and regional terrorism for decades, Well before George Bush announced his "War on Terror"

[JordanBuell]

It's whatever. This shit happens all the time. Russia, Afghanistan, Taiwan, ect.

this.

[Jolan]

Saudi Arabia will back us in the Middle East region, and this deal shows the respect we have for each other. Regardless what anyone thinks, Saudi Arabia is a one of the main factors of where we get our resources from.

[Jason Tate]

According to The Media Note, (http://themedianote.com//newsdetail.aspx?id=1332) Saudi Information and Culture Ministry (http://www.info.gov.sa/English/eDefault.aspx) spokesman Abdul Rahman Al-Hazza announced last night Saudi time that all Saudi Arabian web publishers and online media, including blogs and forums, will need to be officially registered with the government.

[saysmydoctor]

"Culture Ministry"

Hm.