Anybody remember this guy? He was laying in a hospital bed bandaged up after the bomb in his truck failed to kill him. I like the program that Saudi Arabia set up - let terrorists express remorse for their actions and they’re free to go home. I wonder what we would say if Iran had a similar program set up for Hezbollah terrorists.
And you know he was lying about being tricked because…?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
And you know he was lying about being tricked because…?[/quote]
I never insinuated he was lying. Being tricked has nothing to do with the fact that he purposely went to Iraq to join Al Qaeda and take up arms against Americans. Just because he didn’t mean to be a suicide bomber doesn’t make him any less of a terrorist and certainly doesn’t make him any less guilty than the prisoners rotting away at Guantanamo Bay.
Saudi has a program that has released 70% of their convicted terrorists from prison, meanwhile we refuse to release anybody from Gitmo. My point is that we seem to hold pretty relaxed standards for our allies who also just so happen to provide more terrorists to Iraq than any other country.
If we were returning known Iranian terrorists back to their country and 70% of them were being released do you think we would take exception to that?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And you know he was lying about being tricked because…?
I never insinuated he was lying. Being tricked has nothing to do with the fact that he purposely went to Iraq to join Al Qaeda and take up arms against Americans. Just because he didn’t mean to be a suicide bomber doesn’t make him any less of a terrorist and certainly doesn’t make him any less guilty than the prisoners rotting away at Guantanamo Bay.
Saudi has a program that has released 70% of their convicted terrorists from prison, meanwhile we refuse to release anybody from Gitmo. My point is that we seem to hold pretty relaxed standards for our allies who also just so happen to provide more terrorists to Iraq than any other country.
If we were returning known Iranian terrorists back to their country and 70% of them were being released do you think we would take exception to that? [/quote]
You have a point.
[quote]
Beowolf wrote:
And you know he was lying about being tricked because…?
mstott25 wrote:
I never insinuated he was lying. Being tricked has nothing to do with the fact that he purposely went to Iraq to join Al Qaeda and take up arms against Americans. Just because he didn’t mean to be a suicide bomber doesn’t make him any less of a terrorist and certainly doesn’t make him any less guilty than the prisoners rotting away at Guantanamo Bay.
Saudi has a program that has released 70% of their convicted terrorists from prison, meanwhile we refuse to release anybody from Gitmo. My point is that we seem to hold pretty relaxed standards for our allies who also just so happen to provide more terrorists to Iraq than any other country.
If we were returning known Iranian terrorists back to their country and 70% of them were being released do you think we would take exception to that? [/quote]
Why do people assume we can dictate policy to our allies?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And you know he was lying about being tricked because…?
mstott25 wrote:
I never insinuated he was lying. Being tricked has nothing to do with the fact that he purposely went to Iraq to join Al Qaeda and take up arms against Americans. Just because he didn’t mean to be a suicide bomber doesn’t make him any less of a terrorist and certainly doesn’t make him any less guilty than the prisoners rotting away at Guantanamo Bay.
Saudi has a program that has released 70% of their convicted terrorists from prison, meanwhile we refuse to release anybody from Gitmo. My point is that we seem to hold pretty relaxed standards for our allies who also just so happen to provide more terrorists to Iraq than any other country.
If we were returning known Iranian terrorists back to their country and 70% of them were being released do you think we would take exception to that?
Why do people assume we can dictate policy to our allies?[/quote]
Oh this is great. We started this war because a country wasn’t abiding by policies we imposed on them. We’re in the beginning stages of another war because a country is refusing to comply with our demands. Now all of a sudden we want to step back and question what we can and cannot say to the country supplying all of the suicide bombers and terrorists? We can overrun sovereign nations and start wars but we can’t hold our allies accountable for irresponsible policies?
Hold them accountable how exactly?
We started a war with a country that we had been subjecting to an economic boycott and no-fly zones, which was subject to the terms of treaties we imposed after a previous invasion and U.N. sanctions, and which was not letting us inspect its weapons-making facilities per the treaties and per the U.N. sanctions.
Any problems with Iran start with their acts of war against our soldiers in Iraq, and flow directly from their nuclear weapons program - the existence of which, despite the failure to find anything substantial in Iraq, no one denies. Iran is operating as if its at war on several fronts: Iran: Wars Are Hell Iran is in the process of making its biggest supporters on the Security Counsel question its sanity: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070918/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_dc_2 The French are threatening to attack Iran: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_france_nuclear_1 Just today Iran threatened to fire long-range cruise missiles at our interests: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2K4F5LQLY31XBQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wiran118.xml
But of course, “We’re in the beginning stages of another war because a country is refusing to comply with our demands.”
And do you think we can wave a magic wand and get the Saudis or the Pakistanis to do what we want? The Saudis have a great deal of leverage due to their oil reserves; the Pakistani government is too weak to do what we want even if Musharraf wanted to comply with any dicta from us. Or are you arguing that we should threaten them with sanctions and/or invasion?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And you know he was lying about being tricked because…?
I never insinuated he was lying. Being tricked has nothing to do with the fact that he purposely went to Iraq to join Al Qaeda and take up arms against Americans. Just because he didn’t mean to be a suicide bomber doesn’t make him any less of a terrorist and certainly doesn’t make him any less guilty than the prisoners rotting away at Guantanamo Bay.
Saudi has a program that has released 70% of their convicted terrorists from prison, meanwhile we refuse to release anybody from Gitmo. My point is that we seem to hold pretty relaxed standards for our allies who also just so happen to provide more terrorists to Iraq than any other country.
If we were returning known Iranian terrorists back to their country and 70% of them were being released do you think we would take exception to that? [/quote]
Good point. I misread the article in my haste. I apologize. I thought he hadn’t actually gone looking for Al Quaeda.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
We started a war with a country that we had been subjecting to an economic boycott and no-fly zones, which was subject to the terms of treaties we imposed after a previous invasion and U.N. sanctions, and which was not letting us inspect its weapons-making facilities per the treaties and per the U.N. sanctions.
Any problems with Iran start with their acts of war against our soldiers in Iraq, and flow directly from their nuclear weapons program - the existence of which, despite the failure to find anything substantial in Iraq, no one denies. Iran is operating as if its at war on several fronts: http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20070916.aspx Iran is in the process of making its biggest supporters on the Security Counsel question its sanity: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070918/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_dc_2 The French are threatening to attack Iran: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_france_nuclear_1 Just today Iran threatened to fire long-range cruise missiles at our interests: News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph
But of course, “We’re in the beginning stages of another war because a country is refusing to comply with our demands.”
And do you think we can wave a magic wand and get the Saudis or the Pakistanis to do what we want? The Saudis have a great deal of leverage due to their oil reserves; the Pakistani government is too weak to do what we want even if Musharraf wanted to comply with any dicta from us. Or are you arguing that we should threaten them with sanctions and/or invasion?[/quote]
I’m not saying we should threaten anybody with war or invasion. I do think that if the US is going to be consistent in defining terrorism and our intent to combat it at every level then we are failing to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for their contributions. What kind of a magic wand would it take to put some pressure on Saudi Arabia to take a tougher stance against terrorism?
Making a case for war against Iraq and even Iran is not going to make the situation in Saudi Arabia go away. The majority of suicide bombers are Saudi Arabian. The majority of terrorists are from Saudi Arabia. The majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. It is Saudi-funded religious training that creates this convenient segue to terrorism and now we find out that 70% of the terrorists are released on good behavior while marijuana smugglers are beheaded.
But you’re right, our hands are tied. There’s nothing we can do about it because Saudi Arabia has twice as many oil reserves as Iraq and we’re powerless to impose our will on them. How about for starters we stop arming them…
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGq9FLAV6j1yedpYvTgLbqwJiXCw
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
I’m not saying we should threaten anybody with war or invasion. I do think that if the US is going to be consistent in defining terrorism and our intent to combat it at every level then we are failing to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for their contributions. What kind of a magic wand would it take to put some pressure on Saudi Arabia to take a tougher stance against terrorism?
Making a case for war against Iraq and even Iran is not going to make the situation in Saudi Arabia go away. The majority of suicide bombers are Saudi Arabian. The majority of terrorists are from Saudi Arabia. The majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. It is Saudi-funded religious training that creates this convenient segue to terrorism and now we find out that 70% of the terrorists are released on good behavior while marijuana smugglers are beheaded.
But you’re right, our hands are tied. There’s nothing we can do about it because Saudi Arabia has twice as many oil reserves as Iraq and we’re powerless to impose our will on them. How about for starters we stop arming them…
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGq9FLAV6j1yedpYvTgLbqwJiXCw
[/quote]
We could do certain things to persuade them - but I wouldn’t start with withholding arms.
Firstly, there’s no connection there: it’s not as if the Saudis are arming al Queda with arms provided by the U.S.
Secondly, we want them (along with Turkey) to play a role as a balancing force to Iran in the Gulf.
We have a limited ability to convince other countries to do what we want them to do. We can’t get the EU to lower their farm tariffs, and we’ve been trying to get that for 50 years (from the individual countries prior to the formation of the EU, obviously). They’re allies. We want the Chinese and Indians to respect intellectual property - we’re not very successful there either.
With allies, the first thing we generally try (after asking really nicely) is economic pressure - but the Saudis can basically laugh at that, because of their oil. After that, it’s a question of net benefits - do we really want to stop giving them arms? Who will supply them if we don’t? What would happen if they couldn’t get a good supply?
It’s not that I disagree with you that the Saudis should be doing more internally to fight Wahhibism. It’s that you’re overstating our ability to effect that change without sacrificing some other strategic interests.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s not that I disagree with you that the Saudis should be doing more internally to fight Wahhibism.[/quote]
WTF? This is like saying that Israel should be doing more internally to fight Zionism.
This one is well below your regular standard.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s not that I disagree with you that the Saudis should be doing more internally to fight Wahhibism.
WTF? This is like saying that Israel should be doing more internally to fight Zionism.
This one is well below your regular standard.[/quote]
So, what’s your solution? You’re allegedly anti-wahabbi. How can we stop the movement? Personally, I think the Turks had a good approach.