saudi arabia and terrorism

[open mind]

early today i saw an interview of a leader of the families of the victims of 9\11 and she was saying that america sold all the victims of the attack out because the way she saw it was that saudi arabia was a big supporter of terrorism (more so than iraq was) but because of all the oil the saudis have, america did nothing.
and now i hear that the white house has refused to declassify 20 something pages on the 9\11 attack that were critical of the saudis.
even in the best of lights this whole thing seems pretty shady.

[The Nephilm]

people opposed to the war on terror have been pointing this fact out for a good year or so now...

saudi arabia has worse human rights records than iraq as well...

[open mind]

well i'm thinking if americas gonna be all high and mighty about liberating iraq it's more than a little fucked up to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing. it's a total double standard in my view.
but i don't see how that would make me an oppenent to the war on terror (although i find the whole "war on terror" phrase to be catchphrasing at it's worst being that war creates terror and terror can't be defeated by more terror)
anyway if we're supposed to be combating terrorism wherever it's carried out or supported,why isn't it happening here where the whole thing originated?

[bossydacow]

yeah, I guess its ok for us to have economic ties with a terrorist country, but its not okay for France.

[open mind]

this might make me sound ignorant but what country is that ?

[bossydacow]

US & Saudi Arabia, France & Iraq. France has taken tons of shit for it.

[open mind]

yeah sure but how many iraqis were crashing planes into the world trade center,i know bush and co. tried to establish a link between iraq and al queda but did they really give the public concrete proof?if they did i must have missed it so please fill me in.

[open mind]

sorry i'm straying from the subject you don't have to answer that.

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by open mind
yeah sure but how many iraqis were crashing planes into the world trade center,i know bush and co. tried to establish a link between iraq and al queda but did they really give the public concrete proof?if they did i must have missed it so please fill me in.

There are no ties between Iraq/Saddam and al queda, as far as I know. But Bush since Bush thinks there are, Iraq is classified as a terrorist country, or whatever. Which leads back to my point that, for some stupid reason, its okay for us to be friends with a terrorist country (Saudi Arabia), but not France (Iraq). its ridiculous.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
people opposed to the war on terror have been pointing this fact out for a good year or so now...

saudi arabia has worse human rights records than iraq as well...

if you are opposed to the war on terror why would you point this out?

[bossydacow]

Originally posted by yeat182
if you are opposed to the war on terror why would you point this out?

probably to point out that Bush isn't completely serious about the issue anyway, so why waste lives.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
There are no ties between Iraq/Saddam and al queda, as far as I know. But Bush since Bush thinks there are, Iraq is classified as a terrorist country, or whatever. Which leads back to my point that, for some stupid reason, its okay for us to be friends with a terrorist country (Saudi Arabia), but not France (Iraq). its ridiculous.

they are classified as a terrorist country BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT TERRORISTS....al qaeda is not the only terrorist orginaztion in the world.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
probably to point out that Bush isn't completely serious about the issue anyway, so why waste lives.


what does that have to do with anything? Afganistan was a threat, al qaeda was based out of there, and the taliban supported them, just because we didn't go in to saudi arabia doesn't make Afgahnistan any less relevant.

[bossydacow]

By ignoring other countries who have ties to terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia, because of something like oil, it proves that Bush isn't completely serious about eliminating terrorism from the world. And in that case, why even bother invading other countries in the first place? Don't start something unless you are entirely dedicated to the cause, especially when lives are at stake.

Now, this is just me guessing, I'm not fully against the war on terrorism, so...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
By ignoring other countries who have ties to terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia, because of something like oil, it proves that Bush isn't completely serious about eliminating terrorism from the world. And in that case, why even bother invading other countries in the first place? Don't start something unless you are entirely dedicated to the cause, especially when lives are at stake.

Now, this is just me guessing, I'm not fully against the war on terrorism, so...

the truth is they haven't ignored it. the saudi government isn't supporting terrorism, individuals of the royal family and other wealthy saudis are the ones supporting organizations that have ties to terrorist groups. the bush administration has put a lot of pressure on the saudis to crack down on terrorism, and they have, they recently made a huge bust just a few days ago in relation the the bombing there in may, and they are going to let the US interrogate a saudi citizen. the saudi government is cooperating with the war on terror, unlike the taliban, and unlike Iraq, and so at this point there is little need to send out military into their country. Bush is commited to stoping terrorism, and i don't see how you can really say otherwise.

[open mind]

it's beyond stupidity it's out and out hypocrisy.
it seems everyday i find less fault in the rest of the world disbelieving everything our leadership says to them.
but anyway do you think we'll ever take any action in saudi arabia ?
i personally doubt if anything substantial will happen.

[bossydacow]

If Saudi Arabia is cooperating like yeat said, than I doubt we will haved to use military force.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
the truth is they haven't ignored it. the saudi government isn't supporting terrorism, individuals of the royal family and other wealthy saudis are the ones supporting organizations that have ties to terrorist groups. the bush administration has put a lot of pressure on the saudis to crack down on terrorism, and they have, they recently made a huge bust just a few days ago in relation the the bombing there in may, and they are going to let the US interrogate a saudi citizen. the saudi government is cooperating with the war on terror, unlike the taliban, and unlike Iraq, and so at this point there is little need to send out military into their country. Bush is commited to stoping terrorism, and i don't see how you can really say otherwise.

why do the wealthy individuals get a free pass when it comes to funding terrorism?nobody else i can think of is getting such special treatment.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
it's beyond stupidity it's out and out hypocrisy.
it seems everyday i find less fault in the rest of the world disbelieving everything our leadership says to them.
but anyway do you think we'll ever take any action in saudi arabia ?
i personally doubt if anything substantial will happen.

if there is another attack directly related to the saudis we may take action, i know that there was a movement to overthrow the royal family, and that would probably trigger military action if it succeded.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
why do the wealthy individuals get a free pass when it comes to funding terrorism?nobody else i can think of is getting such special treatment.

they don't. they are the ones the saudi government is cracking down on. i never said they were getting special treatment. i said they were the ones that are supporting the terrorists, rather than the saudi government.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
they don't. they are the ones the saudi government is cracking down on. i never said they were getting special treatment. i said they were the ones that are supporting the terrorists, rather than the saudi government.

so their throwing some of their royal family in jail?i've yet to hear about it.
i think somebodys gotta be put away because i know i would'nt be able to plead ignorance when it comes to funding terrorism.
but it's okay for rich saudis to do for some reason.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by cal1082
Completely correct. The Saudi gov. is cooperating from what the U.S gov. says, and has also arrested many terrorists. Also the Saudi gov. wants the missing pages included into the report to show it's not about their involvment. The Bush administration says they dont want to release it because it names, names of people they are looking for. I personally think it should be released.

Do we know for sure that the pages are about saudi arabia? Maybe they point out the fact that the CIA knew an attack was planned weeks in advance or how the FBI arrested one of the hijackers when he was taking flying lessons and had his laptop in posession for a month that had plans for the 9/11 attack on it, but never looked in it....

[open mind]

of course the pages are talking about saudi arabia why else would saudi representatives be talking about them ?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
so their throwing some of their royal family in jail?i've yet to hear about it.
i think somebodys gotta be put away because i know i would'nt be able to plead ignorance when it comes to funding terrorism.
but it's okay for rich saudis to do for some reason.

unfortunaltly the US doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest whomever they want in Saudi Arabia, which is why they need the cooperation of the Saudi Government. equally unfortunate is the fact that their government is a monarchy and the people that the US wants to speak to are members of the royal family , and it is understandable that family usually protects family. hence our current situation.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
unfortunaltly the US doesn't have jurisdiction to arrest whomever they want in Saudi Arabia, which is why they need the cooperation of the Saudi Government. equally unfortunate is the fact that their government is a monarchy and the people that the US wants to speak to are members of the royal family , and it is understandable that family usually protects family. hence our current situation.
whatever happened to finding and hunting down all those who commit acts of terror or fund it no matter what.
also we didn't care about jurisdiction when it came to iraq and afghanistan but we do here? seems like a double standard.

[yeat182]

that is why they are pressuring the saudi govenment to arrest these people, and so far they have been cooperating for the most part....what part of this don't you understand?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
whatever happened to finding and hunting down all those who commit acts of terror or fund it no matter what.
also we didn't care about jurisdiction when it came to iraq and afghanistan but we do here? seems like a double standard.

the difference is that those governments supported terrorism, the saudi GOVERNMENT does not...

[open mind]

i don't understand why america is taking the tactic of pressuring the saudis to come clean when in other countries we topple governments for the same sort of thing.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
the difference is that those governments supported terrorism, the saudi GOVERNMENT does not...
if saudi arabia is a monarchy and the royal family is linked with funding terrorism it sounds like the government is funding terrorism.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
if saudi arabia is a monarchy and the royal family is linked with funding terrorism it sounds like the government is funding terrorism.

if president bush's cousin gave money to some organization that in turn gave some of the money to another group which in turn gave it to a terrorist organization, does that mean the US Government supports terrorists? no.

the saudi's that are giving the money are acting privatley with their own money, and it has nothing to do with the government.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
i don't understand why america is taking the tactic of pressuring the saudis to come clean when in other countries we topple governments for the same sort of thing.

for the millionth time THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT DOESN"T SUPPORT TERRORISM, THE IRAQIS DID, AND THE TALIBAN DID

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
if president bush's cousin gave money to some organization that in turn gave some of the money to another group which in turn gave it to a terrorist organization, does that mean the US Government supports terrorists? no.

the saudi's that are giving the money are acting privatley with their own money, and it has nothing to do with the government.
that argument almost works the only problem is that america isn't a monarchy and saudi arabia is, and ignorance isn't a legal defense.
why not make sure where the money you donate is going.
i'm sure if the royal family said if any of this money goes to terrorist activities it's off with your head, their money would stop going to terrorists

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
for the millionth time THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT DOESN"T SUPPORT TERRORISM, THE IRAQIS DID, AND THE TALIBAN DID
okay the taliban supported terrorism that's a fact but where's the evidence that iraq was suppoting terrorist campaigns(there may be some but i've yet to see it so if you got any please show me, i'm not trying to be a smartass i just haven't seen it)

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
that argument almost works the only problem is that america isn't a monarchy and saudi arabia is, and ignorance isn't a legal defense.
why not make sure where the money you donate is going.
i'm sure if the royal family said if any of this money goes to terrorist activities it's off with your head, their money would stop going to terrorists

that doesn't even make sense, of course america isn't a monarchy, but that has nothing to do with the analogy, you are argueing that because a memeber of the family does something privately than that means the government is involved.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
okay the taliban supported terrorism that's a fact but where's the evidence that iraq was suppoting terrorist campaigns(there may be some but i've yet to see it so if you got any please show me, i'm not trying to be a smartass i just haven't seen it)

Saddam is a known supporter of suicide bombers in Israel, the link between him and al-qaeda hasn't been proven, but it is a fact that he has supported terrorists in the past...

[bossydacow]

I'd say the Saudi Arabian government is a terrorist government. Maybe not by Bush's definition, but it is an evil government that had no respect for its citizens.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
that doesn't even make sense, of course america isn't a monarchy, but that has nothing to do with the analogy, you are argueing that because a memeber of the family does something privately than that means the government is involved.
we are in a democracy where control of our country isn't in the hands of one family,so if bush's cousin gives money to terrorists it isn't state funded terrorism .
if a prince in a monarchy gives terrorists money, the government is supporting terrorism because the government is the royal family.
how does that not make sense?

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
Saddam is a known supporter of suicide bombers in Israel, the link between him and al-qaeda hasn't been proven, but it is a fact that he has supported terrorists in the past...
most of the middle east resents if not hates the state of israel and also supports palestine are the rest of the countries in the middle east supporting terror to?
if supporting palestine makes you a terrorist country then why not take out the whole middle east besides israel?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by bossydacow
I'd say the Saudi Arabian government is a terrorist government. Maybe not by Bush's definition, but it is an evil government that had no respect for its citizens.

that isn't true

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
we are in a democracy where control of our country isn't in the hands of one family,so if bush's cousin gives money to terrorists it isn't state funded terrorism .
if a prince in a monarchy gives terrorists money, the government is supporting terrorism because the government is the royal family.
how does that not make sense?

because that prince isn't nessisarily involved with the government, he is simply "in the family"...it is no different than being related to the president, he has no power in the government, but is related to those who are...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
most of the middle east resents if not hates the state of israel and also supports palestine are the rest of the countries in the middle east supporting terror to?
if supporting palestine makes you a terrorist country then why not take out the whole middle east besides israel?

Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers, it goes beyond not recognizing the state of Israel...or supporting the legitimate government of palestine.

for someone with the screen name open mind, why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
because that prince isn't nessisarily involved with the government, he is simply "in the family"...it is no different than being related to the president, he has no power in the government, but is related to those who are...
have you checked out who runs saudi arabia it's mostly the royal family, their all secratary of something or other so in this instance the family and government are one.
if you don't believe me you can check it out yourself.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers, it goes beyond not recognizing the state of Israel...or supporting the legitimate government of palestine.

for someone with the screen name open mind, why are you having such a hard time understanding this?
while my screen name is open mind i hardly think that means i'm not entitled to an opinion, i'd change my name if i could anyway stick to the subject.
good point about saddam i forgot about that:o

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
have you checked out who runs saudi arabia it's mostly the royal family, their all secratary of something or other so in this instance the family and government are one.
if you don't believe me you can check it out yourself.

the royal family is simply those who are related to the king, who runs the country, and his sons who i imagine also have some control. the royal family is very large when you consider all uncles, cousins, second cousins, brother in laws etc etc...and they don't all run the country together, that wouldn't be a monarchy (mono as in 1). the king (or whatever his official title is) is in charge, and he obviously has a family, hence the royal family.

[open mind]

Originally posted by yeat182
the royal family is simply those who are related to the king, who runs the country, and his sons who i imagine also have some control. the royal family is very large when you consider all uncles, cousins, second cousins, brother in laws etc etc...and they don't all run the country together, that wouldn't be a monarchy (mono as in 1). the king (or whatever his official title is) is in charge, and he obviously has a family, hence the royal family.

the people running saudi arabia are mostly related and while the family is big and some are private citizens the government is primarily run by the royal family with the king in charge so it's still a monarchy.
like i said before you can check it out for yourself

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
the people running saudi arabia are mostly related and while the family is big and some are private citizens the government is primarily run by the royal family with the king in charge so it's still a monarchy.
like i said before you can check it out for yourself

i know, you are simply restating what i've been posting all along...

[open mind]

if you agree the royal family pretty much runs the saudi government with the king in charge of it all and the royal family gives money to terrorists,why is it that you don't think their government supports terrorism?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by open mind
if you agree the royal family pretty much runs the saudi government with the king in charge of it all and the royal family gives money to terrorists,why is it that you don't think their government supports terrorism?

because those who are in power, do not use that power to support terrorism. again, just because someone is related to someone in power, and they choose to support terrorists, doesn't mean that the government does. what a private citizen does doesn't mean the government does as well.