I agree with part of this statement to a degree, and disagree with the generalization of muslims based on the minority of them that happen to get the most press right now. I do agree that Osama doesn't terrorize the U.S. based on them having troops in Saudi because of religious reasons like he says. If that's so why is he attacking the Philippines as well? I haven't noticed the large Philippino military presence in Saudi, or their blind support for Israel. I don't know that it's because he's jealous of our wealth and lifestyle, though. I think it's because he loves power, and the way he's found to have power over a group of people is through terrorism. So matter what he will be a terrorist. Bamma if you look at Hakeem pre rededication to Islam, and post re-dedicatioin, you will see a prime example of it being a peaceful religion. The fact of the matter is that most Muslims don't hate women, don't support terrorism etc. It's just the ones that do that get all the publicity. Indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world, is a victim of terrorism rather than perpetrator, and has a female president.
Uh, it didn't start here on the BBS. The neoconservatives have been stating this as a goal (getting our asses out of Saudi Arabia) for over a decade, yes? Or maybe I've misread some of their documents. But I have definitely seen T_J (and others) advocate it before here. It's one of the few things on which we appear to agree.
I think you're basically right about our troops being on holy land. Osama would've hated that. So now we pull them out of there... ...and pimpslap Iraq as a way of making everybody else toe the line in the region. I don't buy into this "people hate us because they don't have our freedoms and DVD players" theory. As long as we act unilaterally in the world and carpet-bomb countries to ostensibly get at a tiny minority (like bombing Chicago in the '30's to get Al Capone's gang), and telling our allies to go **** themselves, I don't think we'll be making any new friends. And, hate to say it, but our relationship with Israel will always be a bone of contention in the Muslim world. Ironic: we completely ignore what's happening to the Jews during WWII and now we're paying for it ad infinitum (no I'm not anti-Semitic).
9/11 and Al Qaeda's hatred for America comes largely from our presence in Saudi Arabia...we're on their sacred land as infidels. We know OBL has said this countless times. I really do think that this is one of the main reasons. I'm sure that generalized support for authoritarian regimes likre Sauid Arabia, as long as they would cooperate on oil matters, was another important factor. Of course our long standing support of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is always an issue for Arabs. Now to connect the dots. Sadam never threatened Saudi Arabia. The US used faked satellite photos to convince that Sadam had his troops massed on the Saudi border. The Saudis were reluctant to go against Iraq. Sadam and the Saudis always had had relatively good relations. On the basis of those faked documents the Saudis were convinced to let us station troops in their country and use it as the principle base for our attack on Iraq in Gulf War. I. (Documentation of these faked photos was first published in the St. Petersburg Times shortly before Gulf War I) Bin Laden was by many accounts a very popular potential political figure in Saudi Arabia, if it should ever initiate steps toward democracy. He was very upset about US troops in Saudi and their refusing to leave after the Gulf War. Of course the US would never allow the Saudis to elect Bin Laden or anyone else who would not play ball on oil matters. It is interesting how phony intelligence by two Bush Administrations has led to the post war problems that we have had with both of our Iaqi wars.
I think those are the reasons Osama is able to recruit as many people as he does. Those aren't his reasons for terrorism, though. If they were, then please tell me why Al Qaeda is carrying out so much terrorism against the Philippino govt. There is no support for Israel there, or no bases for Philippino govt. on Saudi Soil.
Holy ****! Glynch get off the crack pipe. In the latest news, crack (smoking) correspondent Glynch reveals the King of Saudi Arabia is ACTUALLY George Bush Sr with a fake mustache!!! When did the Saudis EVER ASK THE US TO LEAVE AND WERE REFUSED?
Hayes, this isn't actually one crazy conspiracy theory. The satelite photos were proven to be false as was the girl who came in and testified that the Iraqis were taking babies from incubators etc. I don't know if the Saudis were fearful or not, and may still have wanted U.S. troops there. It had always been my understanding that they did want the troops there. But the bit about the photos being faked is true. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html World > Asia: South & Central from the September 06, 2002 edition In war, some facts less factual Some US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious. By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor MOSCOW – When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia. Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert. "It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think the St. Petersburg Florida paper is a leftwing conspiracy creator. By looking at photos from the exact same time, and seeing that in the non-US photo there were NO IRAQI troops there, the U.S. one was proven to be faked.
Hayes, how sit going? In the Bahamas? I have noticed lately that the defenders of Bush, the Niger thing and other falshehoods pushed to sell the recent Iraq war have often been reduced to ridicule in order to defend the Niger thing, i.e., that is when they aren't trying to finally find someone who can fall on their sword and hopefully protect Bush. Hopefully you aren't reduced to this type of argument also.
Franchisblade, very interesting comment about Bin Laden and the Philipines. I'm not sure what came first. Al Qaeda attacks against the Philipine government or the Philipine goverment with the US troops going after Al Qaeda. Though I certainly don't approve of Al Qaeda and their terrorism, it would be understandable if they attacked the Philipine government in response. As I understand it there have been Muslim rebels (also communists?) in the Philipines for 30 or 40 years. Perhaps Al Qaeda is in alliance with those rebels or they now have a joint cause. Not sure. You may be right if you are suggesting that the Al Qaeda branch operating in the Philipines is primarily interested in creating an Islamic fundamentalist state there and isn't particularly interested in Middle East issues.
Are you denying that the King of Saudi Arabia is actually George Bush Sr.? I guarantee you that the assertion that Iraq was not a threat to Saudi Arabia is simply not true. Whether or not there is a satellite controversy doesn't affect that. Look, most of the anti-war crowd point out that we didn't anticipate Saddam invading Kuwait (ie failure of our intel services). So you are saying that we knew he wasn't a threat to Saudi Arabia, but we pulled the ol' ruse on 'em, and used the potential threat to occupy Saudi Arabia? So we didn't know he was going to invade Kuwait, but we DID know that he was going to stay out of Saudi Arabia? That makes no sense. Don't know about the sat pictures, only references i find are conspiracy sites. see its in csm so will look around a bit more.
The US and Philippines began strong initiatives soon after 911. However, this goes back farther, starting with our invasion of the islands in 1898 and subsequent establishment of military bases. There is a strong US (military) presence on the island and there have been frequent clashes with Muslim terrorists (established in the more remote islands on the extremeties) since WWI. So, it is not a surprise that the Philippines have been targeted due to its history, strong US military ties, and closer proximity to the Muslim world.
Virgin Islands. Sweet livin.' Got a partner to join me that I worked with in NY, so we do our business from a nice large covered terrace at my house. About a couple hundred yards up from the beach with a great view of the Caribbean and the beach. No, of course not. I would never... Luckily I have always advocated the same thing: The Iraqi intervention was justified. If you want to crucify Bush I don't really care that much as I'm on record as being a Gore supporter and of the opinion that he is stupid. But I DO want you to stop hittin' the pipe.
Like I said I wasn't trying to coment on whether Saddam was a threat to Iraq. I even said that I believed that the Suadis did want our troops there. In truth I haven't read that much about that particular issue. I have read on the evidence in the first gulf war including the pictures mentioned by Glynch. I only wanted to point out the Satellite pictures being faked wasn't a wacky conspiracy theory. I don't think the Christian Science Monitor is a conspiracy site. Nor do I think that the St. Petersburg times from Florida who initially broke the story is one either. The article even points out how they discovered the U.S. photos were faked.
Fair enough. Glynch's statements that Iraq was not a threat to Saudi Arabia, and that they asked us to leave and we refused were was to much .org for me. CSM is not a conspiracy site, agreed, but that doesn't mean they didn't just pick up a sensationalist story, and it certainly doesn't mean there was no threat to Saudi Arabia. For the record, although Glynch is pretty far out in terms of his politics, he does at least, to his credit, have some boundaries (I remember a particular conversation about FARC) that most uber lefties don't have.
If I'm not mistaken there is no longer a 'strong US military presence' in the Philippines since the denied us base rights about ten years ago. Since then there has been no US presence except after this insurgency grew an Al Queda connection. Again, not that we're on opposite sides, Rimbaud, but more that we keep each other in check. (btw: saw your comment in the other thread and take it as a compliment that 'if you had to pick....etc. etc.')
Yes there are holy lands in Iraq too, but NO COUNTRY in the middle east takes the Muslim religion more seriously than Saudi Arabia. Iran and Iraq are our enemies, but I've been to Iran and have lived in Saudi Arabia and I can tell you the difference between the people of Iraq/Iran and the Saudis is comparable to the difference between Americans and tribesmen in the Brazilian rain forest.
You are correct...I meant that we have had a history of strong presence over the last hundred years, but forgot the extent of the decade-long ban of foreign troops (I admit that I thought there still were some active bases, just not nearly as many). We still have strong ties, though, as evidenced by the Filipino government's request for US aid with their own terrorist problems...despite the ban (although it apparently wasn't too popular with some of the public). Also, since Americans were kidnapped... Anyway, thanks for the reminder.
