You are, with all due respect, twisting the argument you are referring to all out of recognition. The argument isn't whether Iran sponsors terrorism, or that at least elements of the Saudi family does. I don't think there is an argument about that, but whether there is proof Amahdinajad, or the Saudi monarch, can be shown to directly sponsor it with evidence that is indisputable. Whether those two personally "sponsor terrorism." It is an exercise in sematics. And you are concerned about "Bush bashing?" Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or wounded by his war. Millions have been made refugees, with many and many having no realistic hope of ever returning to their homes, if they aren't rubble. A huge percentage of the professional class, you know, the engineers, the doctors, the lawyers, the educated, the middle class, the people who make a country work, have fled the country. A huge number of those who fled the country are living hand to mouth, when before the invasion, they had jobs, homes, neighbors, and those other things you take for granted. Some might argue that Bush is responsible for that. I certainly would. Chew on that. D&D. Impeach Mr. Bankrupting America, Busy Passing on The War to The Next President.
For some of them. The difference was neither Churchill nor Roosevelt started the war with the Japanese and Germans. Bush did start the war with Iraq.
The point of the discussion is to differentiate jo mama's attack on King Abdullah shown in the picture with Bush and trying to connect him with terrorism. My assertion is that the Saudi state and King Abdullah do not fund terrorism nor do they wish to promote. However, there may be elements within Saudi Arabia that do and they may be afriad of taking them on - as we see in Pakistan. If my language around "Saudi Leaders" is ambgious, than let it be ambigious no longer - that's what I mean by Saudi leaders. Just as American leaders are the leaders of those in power - Bush and Cheney. Now, that's completely different that Iran. Were the prez was one of the students involved in the Iran Hostage Crisis and the state actively funds and supports Hezbelloh, a known terrorist organization. As the prez is the head of state and Iran continues those operations on a state level (an organized and directive policy, not some rogue members who they can not stop) - the case is that he is complicit. There's a difference here and that's what I am pointing out.
you might want to study history. the japanese attacked us at pearl harbor. iran had nothing to do w/ 9/11. the comparison made by the sign is invalid.
changing the goalposts again. your original point was that the saudi leaders do not fund terrorism and you are quite wrong on that. you seem to be stuck on the fact that i posted a pic of our manly president holding hands w/ a handsome saudi prince. i never said that prince was supporting terrorism - the point of that pic was to show how close your president is to the saudi royal family, who happen to be one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes on the planet and also support terrorism. plus, its a funny picture. did i say that prince was funding terrorism? it wouldnt surprise me if he was involved to some degree, but i never made the claim. you yourself have admitted in this thread that you dont know much about saudi politics and apparently you were not aware that saudi arabia is a monarchy and the royal family is the government. im far from an expert, but how can you continue discussing an issue which you are so ignorant on. you have spent the last two pages changing the goalposts and creating a strawman argument that i never made. first you say saudi leaders do not fund terrorism than when you are called on it you turn it into "well king abdullah doesnt fund terrorism", when i never claimed he did. and i would still like you to provide proof that the iranian leaders are supporting terrorism. your assertion is very wrong. again, even basso acknowledges that the saudis fund and support terrorism. its just you and roxran on this one. again, the royal family are the leaders in saudi. the country is a monarchy. link? so does saudi arabia and other countries. why do you not hold them to the same standards as iran? there is no difference and that is what i am pointing out. there is an inherent double standard in our middle east policy and who we pick and choose to go to war with.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275697948158759 [rquoter]Saudi Arabia: Friend Or Foe? By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:20 PM PT War On Terror: A new movie called "The Kingdom" shows Saudis fighting terrorism alongside FBI agents. That's certainly what we'd like to see. But like the flick, it's pure fiction. There's new evidence the Saudis aren't cooperating in our battle to eradicate terrorists or those who bankroll them. Their negligence is shocking even to cynics. According to the Treasury Department's top anti-terror official, the kingdom has not prosecuted a single person named by the U.S. or the United Nations as a terror financier. Asked by ABC News how many Saudis have been charged with funding terror since 9/11, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey said, "There have not been any." Not one? "No," he asserted. In a rare public rebuke of our alleged war ally, Levey pointed out that the Saudi government has failed to go after even men like Yasin al-Qadi, a wealthy Saudi businessman whom both the U.S. and U.N. blacklisted as an al-Qaida financier one month after the 9/11 attacks. Al-Qadi remains free, still a prominent figure in the kingdom. "And he remains designated to the United Nations for his material support to al-Qaida," Levey fumed. "When the evidence is clear that these individuals have funded terrorist organizations and knowingly done so, then that should be prosecuted and treated as real terrorism." In another example, a top Saudi charity official whom U.S. prosecutors accused of funneling funds to al-Qaida fighters in Chechnya is still at large. After the Al-Haramain Foundation was shut down as an al-Qaida front, the official left its U.S. branch in Portland, Ore., and returned to Saudi Arabia. He now works for the city of Riyadh. The Saudis were supposed to create a commission to police such charities. We're still waiting. Meanwhile, Saudi charities continue to pump millions into the global jihad. U.S. officials say al-Qaida's resurgence is due in part to a renewed flow of money from the kingdom to operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Riyadh continues to look the other way as cash is sent from mosques and charities to support jihadists and Sunni insurgents next door in Iraq. It's official Saudi policy, moreover, to ignore the flow of Saudi fighters joining the jihad in Iraq. Lost in all the saber-rattling over Iran is the inconvenient fact that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. Administration officials concede Saudi's role in Iraq has grown "counterproductive," one of many euphemisms used to avoid alienating the Saudi royal family. Under other circumstances, such behavior might be called acts of war. After all, this is the old home of Enemy No. 1, Osama bin Laden, and 15 of the hijackers he ordered to attack us. It's highly likely that some of the Saudi nationals killing our troops in Iraq may be recycled al-Qaida terrorists. Last December, we agreed to release into the custody of Saudi authorities 29 Saudi killers from Gitmo. What did they do with them? Jail them? Work them over for information about new terror plots or leads on other terrorists? No, Saudi police freed all 29 of them. That now makes 53 Gitmo terrorists we've returned to Saudi Arabia only to watch them go free. Some have rejoined the battlefield after being released.The Saudi government wants the remaining Saudis held at Gitmo returned. No doubt all of them will be set loose too. Saudi Arabia's promise to crack down on terrorists is as empty as its vow to clean up its hateful textbooks calling for jihad against infidels. With friends like the Saudis, who needs enemies?[/rquoter]
I don't think it is 0...not quite...As President of Iran, a country which sponsers terrorism, and has contributed to terroristic deeds and is the face of the country...I'm pretty sure the influence is greater than 0...
ive got to pack - im off to mexico city till tuesday, but i have to ask... why are you so fixated on that one image whilst totally ignoring the myriad of other points i initially made? 1) 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudi 2) saudi arabia is a known sponsor of terrorism and their citizens live in a religious police state ruled by a tyrannical family, who violently shut down free speech. 3) some of the funding for the 9/11 hijackers came from saudis. 4) as much noise people make about iran sending arms to iraq, saudi is doing the same thing, but on a much bigger scale. but they are our allies? 1) pakistan made a truce with al-qaeda to allow them to operate freely in northwestern tribal areas 2) their isi are among the biggest supporters of al-qaeda 3) they have nukes 4) one of their generals was funding mohammad atta. but they are our allies?
Please give me a cross reference site, with names of consequence, and verifiable evidence... and i hate to be the spell police, but since you have taken that roll before i feel obligated to point out for you that it is "sponsor", not "sponser".
I am not ignoring anything, that is why I asked for what I asked for...Get it? I am reacting to jo momma's absolute statement of Saudi leaders supporting terrorism and demanding information based on the criteria of: A. cross reference site B. names of consequence C. specific evidence When I have examined the information and it passes the smell test, then and ONLY then will I pass absolute judgement....and if you don't like that, take a walk in the forest and think it through...
otto can go back to the end of the line, I asked you first based on an absolute statement from you in this thread...
If "calling for the destruction or removal of a state" if truly a form of terrorism, I think I have some bad news about your tax dollars.
Alright kids!,...It's time to play Does jo momma's sites pass the smell test? Round 1! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml After careful analyze and scrutinized reading, it obviously fails on...B. that's right kids!, it has no names of consequence....how cute. no names of consequence as related to Saudi leaders connected to terror.... Bonus? You betcha!...C. no specific evidence...kinda tied to the failure of B. huh... and while I'm sure it is a legitimate cross referenced site, it fails to show B and C at all... The other two links,....Do they provide cross refence support, names of consequence, or specific evidence either? nope. Can it be explained how jo momma comes up with absolute dogma? nope...
