How are things different between SA and Iraq: First, SA is cracking down on terrorism and terrorist funding - "Analysts like Mustafa Alani, a Middle East security analyst at the Royal United Services Institute in London, say that the attacks inside Saudi Arabia have turned a broad swath of Saudi public opinion against Al Qaeda, creating the conditions for the kingdom to pursue an "open war" against the group. Until the past year, the kingdom was afraid of inflaming popular sentiment with an all-out campaign, but Al Qaeda operations have given the government a freer hand. It began with the May 12, 2003, suicide attacks on three housing compounds for foreigners in the capital, Riyadh, which killed 36 people, most of them Saudis. "[Osama] bin Laden can't claim that he's only killing Westerners or foreigners anymore,'' says Mr. Alani. "The May attack ... really changed the perception of the population and that allowed the government to become fully committed in pursuing them." As far as 'the House of Saud' sponsoring terrorism, and that being the same as the state sponored terrorism, here's a quote from the report 'Saudi Arabia and the War on Terror.' There are persistent charges that members of the Saudi ruling family either directly or indirectly cut a deal with bin Laden, at minimum promising not to impede his fund-raising and recruiting in Saudi Arabia, perhaps even supporting him financially, in exchange for al Qaeda refraining from targeting Saudi Arabia. The major published source to raise this charge is Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11 (New York: Random House, 2003). Nothing in the public record supports this charge. The car bomb attack on the American training mission to the Saudi National Guard in Riyadh in November 1995, which killed seven and wounded sixty, was perpetrated by Saudis who, before their execution, publicly identified bin Laden as their inspiration. However, it is impossible to disprove the charge as well. In the past, Saudi leaders have attempted to buy off foreign opponents, and the ruling family is large enough that it is possible that some prince or group of princes took it upon themselves to explore this option. The most that can be said with certainty is that, if there ever were such an agreement, it did not work very well for the Al- Saud.
I never accused you of saying they were allied. But you brought up AQ's current involvement with Iraq when the discussion was on Bush's justification for invading Iraq. At that time Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror. Iraq has since been part of the war on terror, and Al Qaeda is now there, and that expansion isn't a good thing in the war on terror. I don't disagree that Al Qaeda is there. I'm wondering how you brought up the fact that Al Qaeda is there now, when the discussion was about the reasons behind Bush's invasion.
Because the discussion turned to 'don't understand why the public thinks Iraq is part of the War on Terror.'
yes, we're there now and so is AQ. this does not mean we should forget or forgive, and certainly not praise, the fact that bush lead us to war under false pretenses. iraq is part of the war on terror because we lured the bastards there.
Who praises Bush for either misleading or mistakenly using WMD and AQ as justification of the war? I'm merely contesting the view that the public mistakenly believes Iraq is part of the war on terror. It IS part of the war on terror.
i know it IS, but it WAS NOT before we went in. this administration had a majority of americans believing that this was the case pre-invasion. that is deception.
Sure it was. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. That's the conversation above. It wasn't connected to AQ then, and I will fairly give you that was deceptive of the administration to clearly indicate AQ WAS connected to Saddam.
Hayes, most of that last post isn’t worth responding to. All I can say is, see my above post for what I really said. But I have to comment on a couple of lines. I laughed out loud when I read this, but I shouldn’t have as it’s actually quite serious and indicative of the mindset of that has fostered this war. Scope is irrelevant?! How do I even respond to a statement as ridiculous as that? If a police force were to ignore major crime and concentrate on dealing problem of double parking, would you consider that an appropriate response to crime? The statement that scope doesn’t matter is about as ridiculous and desperate as it gets. You’re digging as deep as you can to try to defend Bush, and you’ve completely forgotten about the real issues. Clearly you don’t care about the issue of terrorism, otherwise you would be concerned that the war on terrorism be conducted in at least a reasonably efficient manner. When you say, “scope doesn’t matter” you are admitting that you don’t care about the issue of terrorism, and you’re only interested grasping onto any excuse you can to defend Bush. This exemplifies the tribalism and the moral relativism of many Bush supporters, who are committed to him no matter what. (Incidentally this would be pre-conventional morality on Kohlberg’s scale). Your use of the qualifier “openly” is another example. There is no doubt that SA is heavily involved in terrorism one way or another, but you excuse this administration’s inaction because SAs monarchy isn’t “openly” involved. I’m sure the families of the 9/11 victims would be much less eager to bow down to such a feeble excuse. I almost always call them “this administration.” I believe it was you who introduced the term neocon into this discussion. I don’t think I used it at all, other than in reference to your use of it. Your demand that I "stop calling them neocons" is pretty bizarre to say the least. But further, the word is not yours to define. It’s a commonly used term in the press for this administration as it was for Reagan’s. There are plenty of other references as well, like the Wikipedia one I provided for you. So the way I’ve seen it used here is quite appropriate, although I seldom use it myself. I didn’t say that all pressure was overt, but what is truly naïve is to think that pressure is being applied when there is no evidence that it is. The US has a major strategic interest in the Ukraine, especially now that this administration has blown all its resources in Iraq and Putin is now taking advantage of the fact that they’ve been caught with their pants down. How about an African country? Is the US sinking big dollars into any country there to help transform it to a democracy? How about Central and South America? How about Asia, Afghanistan even? Is the US putting enough resource into it to ensure that it becomes a stable democracy? I think they may have improved there, but only because it became a PR issue exposing their lack of attention to the issue of supporting democracy in Afghanistan. But we are being told that the US is prepared to put $1 billion per day into Iraq because this administration is committed to democracy. That’s just yet another load of BS from this administration. Right, well, I don’t think I used the term neocon in thread so much as a single time other than in response to your use of it. But more to the point, it’s not your term to define or redefine.
That's nice. Scope is irrelevant when assessing whether a state is a sponsor of terrorism, doofus. Either you are or you aren't. As compared to Iraq, which was 'openly' sponsoring terrorism. SA is not doing so, and as I've quoted from sources above, there is no substantiated evidence that the STATE of SA is funding terrorism. Whether its commonly used or not is irrelevant. If you take the time to assess what a neocon is then it becomes apparent what it is NOT. Someone who is a neocon is NOT someone who is a realist. But that main point is still seemingly lost on you. When trying to assess the motivations of the administration, looking to their ideology - one might think, might provide relevant insight. If one believes, as I've previously stated, that the administration is directed by neoconservatives, then by ANY accepted definition of the word democracy is a driving force in their ideology. They want everyone to be like us. Sorry, but its just silly to say the US has put no pressure on SA to crackdown on terrorist funding. lol, as predicted your counterclaim is strategic interest. And yes, I can name plenty of actions that really DIDN'T have strategic implications such as Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
damn, what a bunch of windbags. hayes, you're wrong because you read the guardian, and grizz, you're canadian, so of course you're wrong.
