Ha ha! These are our allies!
Beleive it or not.
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55321,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55321,00.html</a>;
Unfortunately it's NOT a joke.
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55321,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55321,00.html</a>;
Unfortunately it's NOT a joke.
Comments
first you get mad, then you realize how many people believe $hyt like this... ... it's just depressing...
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com"; target="_blank">Best of the Web</a>
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/threats_saudi020612.html"; target="_blank">Our Friends the Saudis</a>
Remember the empty antiaircraft launcher that was found last month near Prince Sultan Air Base near Riyadh? Now we have an explanation for it. "Terrorists in Saudi Arabia made a systematic attempt to shoot down U.S. Air Force planes operating from one of several bases there," ABC News reports:
Sources told ABCNEWS the terrorist who fired the weapon has been captured, is in custody in Sudan and is talking.
The sources said the suspect, who was trained by al Qaeda, was the head of a cell operating in Saudi Arabia. They said he and others cased U.S. air bases and one night easily evaded Saudi security forces while attempting to shoot down an American plane.
The suspect says he fired one missile, but it failed to lock onto its target, according to the sources. He then became frightened, buried a second missile nearby and ran away.
The fact that anyone was able to get that close to the U.S. operating base has raised grave concerns about the safety of American pilots and new worries about just how serious the Saudis are about protecting U.S. military forces in their country.
As we <a href="http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110001786#shoulder"; target="_blank">noted last month</a>, the Washington Times reported that after finding the launcher, the Saudis destroyed the evidence before U.S. officials could examine it. Sudan, on the other hand, arrested the suspect. Yet while Sudan is on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism, the <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10247.htm"; target="_blank">U.S. State Department</a> claims that "after September 11 . . ., the Saudi Government reaffirmed its commitment to combat terrorism. . . . The King, Crown Prince, Government-appointed religious leaders, and official news media publicly and consistently condemned terrorism and refuted the few ideological and religious justifications made by some clerics."
The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44314-2002Jun13.html"; target="_blank">Associated Press</a> reports that "the U.S.-Saudi relationship may be headed for trouble." Headed for trouble? This is a barbaric and corrupt country that gives both financial and ideological support to terrorists, spreads vile anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda, and <a href="http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110001836"; target="_blank">kidnaps American citizens</a>. The Saudis are nothing but trouble.
In fairness, though, we should present the Saudi view, from a quote in the AP dispatch: "We may be creating an entire generation that has no confidence in the United States, that believes it is prejudiced against Arabs and against Islam. We are looking at the potential for long-term alienation." Which Saudi prince said that? Actually, it was Edward Walker, "a former U.S. diplomat in Saudi Arabia." One wonders whose side some of these diplomats are on.
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1023936368727462080,00.html"; target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> (link for WSJ.com subscribers), on the other hand, reports that there's been "a general improvement in military relations between Riyadh and Washington during the past month," which "could make it easier for the Bush administration to launch a military campaign to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: scott_h_phd ]</p>
<strong>I don´t get it. How is this TV station an allie with US?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No coffee this morning? Okay it's simple. Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our ally. One of the prices, part of the government, is paying to broadcast evil anti-Semitic hatred. The joke is that this culturally backward **** hole, represented by a corrupt government, is our ally.
<strong>The Saudi's are scum. Two faced, back stabbing scum. Even Kuwait hates our guts now. We've either really did horrible things (uh, free them from a dictator's regime maybe?) or they're just as screwed up politically or religiously propigated as all the other Arab states and countries. They can all go to hell. And still their parents send their kids to our colleges...because they are the best.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why else do you suppose they send their "kids" to our colleges? Student visa anyone? Granted, many of them are real students, but how many terrorists do you suppose come in through this means? Add it up, the numbers may scare you.
<hr></blockquote>
This is called a WARNING not treachery. Mr. Walker, who has been there, can understand that this juuuuust may not be 100% someone else's fault. Or would you rather he came back and said, "Nope, no problems there. We're 100% in the right in all our actions and deeds"?
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
[quote]In another interview broadcast in April, Prof. 'Adel Sadeq, which the station identifies as head of a psychiatry faculty at a university in Cairo, talks of Islamic martyrs reaching "the apex of happiness."
"The height of ecstasy and happiness ? and I am talking to you as a professional, a psychiatrist ? comes the moment ... just like the producer told you: ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, and then he presses the button to blow himself up.
"The most beautiful moment, for which he would have time speed up, is the moment he says "one ... this man explodes, and he feels that he is flying."
<hr></blockquote>
This is truly frightening. But you know what, this man is probably right. Its probably true that, for the martyr, this moment is one of ecstasy. When you believe something so whole heartedly that does not exist (god as concieved by feeble human minds) the measure of your belief becomes more and more difficult to see, since that against which you measure your belief is not of this world... is, in fact, non-existant. Your standard ultimately becomes the everything because no one thing or act can possibly show itself as worthy enough to match something that nothing can be judged against . . .the only thing that can prove satisfactory, then, as a proof of belief, is the ultimate sacrifice of all that is here; meaning, the whole world as it appears to the martyr.... meaning his life.
It is only by doing away with the world that is inadequate, (because it is judged by what never can show itself in this world (due to its non-existance)) that the martyr feels that he is showing his belief andunderstanding of the ultimate truth.
Actually, this is a pretty common psychological dynamic: one believes that the source of value comes from a god that can not be part of this world (monotheism) and thus the only test of truth is the willingness to sacrifice all of the world as proof. It stands to reason then that the sacrifice, since so much is investested in the act, is akin to extreme ecstasy . . the ultimate union with the desired Other through death. Martyrs probably cum in their pants as they're killing themselves, and others.
Its very scary because, as we have seen in these boards, how can you possibly offer anything as reason to think otherwise when the monotheist is, by definition, against any way of thinking grounded on things, and situations that are grounded in this world?!?!
For the monotheist, the truth has to be shown through negation of the world, the world which only reveals not-truths . . . this is because the world reveals that god does not exist as concieved or as concievable by humans.
Now with the Taliban gone, Saudi Arabia, under its family dictatorship, is now the most oppressive regime in the region. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and also has the highest percentage of people in desperate poverty. "Duplicity" is the name of the game in U.S. foreign policy.
<strong>
This is called a WARNING not treachery. Mr. Walker, who has been there, can understand that this juuuuust may not be 100% someone else's fault. Or would you rather he came back and said, "Nope, no problems there. We're 100% in the right in all our actions and deeds"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay I'm buying coffee for everyone here cause you all are too sleepy headed to "get it". So here's how it works. "We" are not teaching them anything. "They" are teaching their children to be Jew hating murders. Get it?
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: scott_h_phd ]</p>
A very intelligent diplomat goes somewhere, looks about, says "We're pissing people off" and that makes you wonder whose side he's on.
Duh.
That TV programme sounds horrendous. You sound like you've got a screwed up FPU.
I would like it to be the latter, but somehow that doesn't make sense with the quote... it sounds rather that he is saying that something that the US is doing is causing the Saudis to hate us. Perhaps there is more in the context that this quote came from that would give us a hint....
Now with the Taliban gone, Saudi Arabia, under its family dictatorship, is now the most oppressive regime in the region. It has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and also has the highest percentage of people in desperate poverty. "Duplicity" is the name of the game in U.S. foreign policy.<hr></blockquote>
Spot on Mozilla!
Regarding foreign policy, America has so often employed the principle "the enemy of our enemy is our friend". This principle leads to duplicity by default and as a result has caused bad-feelings towards the United States in many places. A huge sector (nearly 50%) of the $1.5 trillion US economy is based on defense and defense-related activities and to maintain those businesses, jobs and $$ throughput, there has to be enough international unrest and war to maintain that demand, both for the 'justification' of the domestic military-industrial machine, and also the export of military hardware to "the enemies of our enemies" as well as our true allies. Unfortunately, the enemies of our enemies often turn out to be enemies too; Iraq and the Afghan Mujahadeen (which gave rise to the Taliban which hosted bin Laden's al Qaeda) are two recent and notorious examples. The creation of enemies makes certain parties very very wealthy indeed, and they are NOT going to give up easily on that privilege.
Scott H [quote]No coffee this morning? Okay it's simple. Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our ally. One of the prices, part of the government,
is paying to broadcast evil anti-Semitic hatred. The joke is that this culturally backward **** hole, represented by a corrupt government, is our ally.<hr></blockquote>
The power of big business is extraordinary. When there lots of $$$$ at stake, in this case, Big Oil, everything relating to civilization goes by the wayside. When there is big money to be made, we make little or no distinction in the degree of scuzziness if the stakes are high enough. Hell, theres a group of US companies (RJ Reynolds etc) manufacture a legal product that kills over 400,000 Americans every year and they contribute heavily to the political campaigns of *both* major parties. And nobody in power even bats an eyelid. (!!)
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
The station is sponsored by a Suadi prince. Saudi royalty is obviously fine with this.
<strong>Hey, Cpt. Patronising, you don't get it do you?
A very intelligent diplomat goes somewhere, looks about, says "We're pissing people off" and that makes you wonder whose side he's on.
Duh.
That TV programme sounds horrendous. You sound like you've got a screwed up FPU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dear Mr Idontknowwhatadiplomatisfor,
He's there to represent us. Not them. Get it? He works for US not them. We pay him not his Saudi handlers. It's so simple I don't know why I have to explain it. If he has some criticism of US policy or it's effects he tells his superiors. Get it? He doesn't go out in public and offer up ammunition to the other side. Now the Saudis can say to US "see your own people don?t agree with what you are doing". Puts us in a great position to bargain for use of air bases and all that. Also I don't agree that he is "very intelligent". If he were he'd know what side he's on.
Double Duh
And, he probably has a privelleged vantage point from which he can see what is going on quite a bit better than we can . . . I'm sure that he gets to see the same media outlets that we relie on for information, but, he also gets to see the front lines from the front lines and not filtered through spin and politically partisan interpretation. You migh not like what he is saying but you shouldn't assume so quickly that you understand what he is saying . . . i think that there is possibly much more to his story.
but with that said, if it isn't the case that there is more going on, then I agree that he is not being diplomatic in that he is giving to the very side that he shouldn't, a weakened face . . . he should be the very representative of a unified front: he should be our face as we wold want it to appear to others, meaning; self assured and consistent.