Meet the biggest fool running for president.

mosca · 08-04-2007, 02:05 AM

I'm not 100% sure why they think this is that big of a deal. As if there's not already a ton of animosity between the U.S. and many Muslims. It seems like almost every day sees news reports of Hezbollah, Hamas, or Pakistani extremists conducting anti-West protests in the streets. Then there's the controversy following the Dutch Mohammed cartoons. Let's not forget the uproar following the Pope's recent comments. Oh yeah, the invasion of Iraq - didn't bode too well with a lot of the more sensitive Muslims either.

Where does the State Department get the idea that it needs to remind 2008 presidential candidates that they should muzzle some of their remarks about the Muslim world? A lot of these people are flat-out determined to hate us for one reason or another. The U.S. being labeled as "The Great Satan" isn't exactly a recent event.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Department cringes as candidates spout off
Comments on sensitive diplomatic issues arouse officials’ ire
By MATTHEW LEE - The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up.

Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world.

“Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do,” said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer.

First it was Barack Obama’s talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants. Then Hillary Clinton refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks.

The State Department had hoped to steer clear of controversy, complaints and public protests sparked by Obama and Clinton, but Tancredo’s comments bumped up against the limit of diplomatic patience.

Casey had unusually harsh words for Tancredo, R-Colo., who said this week that if elected he would threaten to bomb the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites, to deter attacks on the United States.

“It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion,” a clearly agitated Casey told reporters, shaking his head in disgust.

In Pakistan, the country’s Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday it was a matter of “grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election.”

http://www.thestate.com/nation/story/136905.html

BroncoBuff · 08-04-2007, 03:04 AM

Tancredo is an idiot ... the Saudis are a staunch ally, and are hostile toward - even fearful of - jihadist Islam. I'm getting tired of people blaming the Saudis because so many terrorists were raised there ... where's the logic in that? There's an unusual number of serial killers from Maryland (I think its Maryland). Does that mean we should cut off federal aid to Maryland? Saudi Arabia is a bit like the United States has become ... wealthy and comfortable enough to give their children lots of free rein to cause mischief. The Saudi goverment is very moderate - they've even talked nice about Israel.

__

These State Department cautions to the candidates are happening for one reason only: The Iraqi War. Had the United States sent tens of thousands of troops into Tora Bora to find bin-Laden and Al-Quaeda promptly - even the complaining Muslims State is fearful of would have understood. With 9/11 fresh in our memories, few would've objected to military action, even on sovereign Pakistani soil.

But now, after FIVE YEARS of Iraqi occupation, even Pakistan says no. Rumsfeld called off a high-confidence strike on al-Quaeda at the least second for fear of "angering" the Pakis, and now Obama is criticized for taking a tough stand on catching bin-Laden.

WTF has this world come to

Now we can't even track bin-Laden down?!

yavoon · 08-04-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Tancredo is an idiot ... the Saudis are a staunch ally, and are hostile toward - even fearful of - jihadist Islam. I'm getting tired of people blaming the Saudis because so many terrorists were raised there ... where's the logic in that? There's an unusual number of serial killers from Maryland (I think its Maryland). Does that mean we should cut off federal aid to Maryland? Saudi Arabia is a bit like the United States has become ... wealthy and comfortable enough to give their children lots of free rein to cause mischief. The Saudi goverment is very moderate - they've even talked nice about Israel.

__

These State Department cautions to the candidates are happening for one reason only: The Iraqi War. Had the United States sent tens of thousands of troops into Tora Bora to find bin-Laden and Al-Quaeda promptly - even the complaining Muslims State is fearful of would have understood. With 9/11 fresh in our memories, few would've objected to military action, even on sovereign Pakistani soil.

But now, after FIVE YEARS of Iraqi occupation, even Pakistan says no. Rumsfeld called off a high-confidence strike on al-Quaeda at the least second for fear of "angering" the Pakis, and now Obama is criticized for taking a tough stand on catching bin-Laden.

WTF has this world come to

Now we can't even track bin-Laden down?!

the saudi's support jihadist terrorism, including the mechanism that produces them, the state supported clergy and the exporting of islam through madrassa and mosque funding worldwide. they are AGAINST jihadi's who spout anti-saudi rhetoric, and they are "softly" against anything that might upset the west for them to be for.

they are not really against jihad, but remember osama and numerous other jihadists take a dim view of the saudi's right to rule, and therefore THOSE ppl have to be maligned and even actually fought. as well as anyone who might plan an attack on saudi soil, and lastly anythng they might be inclined to say to placate the west.

I don't know where u get off calling one of the most brutal, tryannical, backwards, human rights violators in the world "moderate."

BroncoBuff · 08-04-2007, 06:16 AM

Yavoon ... NO.

Saudi Arabian leadership, goverment and society do NOT support terrorism! Read up on it, bin-Laden has called for an overthrow of their governemnt, and is a wanted criminal there - for 9/11!! The Saudis have themselves been victims of several terror attacks by fundamentalists. They are a very rich, very peaceful country ... they are come very close to extending an olive branch toward Israel. The only reason they do not (according to George Will), is fear of reprisal from jihadi fundamentalists.

They are VERY moderate politically and in world relations! YES - you are right - their society is abominably restrictive, they treat women like possessions and their human rights record is not great. But they always despised and feuded with Sadaam Hussein and the Iranian ayatollahs. They have never advocated war or terror, and they do their level-best to straddle the Israeli-Palestinian fence.

Saudi Arabia is one of our FIVE MOST IMPORTANT allies.

The Saudi Arabians remind me of kids I knew at Regis H.S who had wealthy parents. The wealthier the parents, the worse the kids were with dope, cutting, cigarettes, the full gamut of rebellion. Yes - many terrorists are Saudi citizens. But if the U.S. places someone on the Terror Watch List, the Saudis observe that list. 100% true.

BroncoBuff · 08-04-2007, 06:21 AM

bin-Laden and indeed MANY terrorists have had their citizenship revoked by the Saudis. bin-Laden is a wanted man in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis used their influence in the Sudan to have al-Quaeda and OBL kicked out ... that's when they went back to Afghanistan.

El Minion · 08-04-2007, 11:03 AM

More on his rationalization.

----------

Tom Tancredo's Final Solution

Meet the biggest fool running for president.

By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, at 5:17 PM ET

Wouldn't you know it. The Weekly World News announces that it will cease publication (it will retain its presence on the Web), and within a week there surfaces irrefutable evidence that space aliens ate Tom Tancredo's brain. Addressing 30 people at the Family Table restaurant in Osceola, Iowa, the presidential candidate and Republican House member from Colorado outlined his highly original position on homeland defense:

If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. But as I say, if I am wrong, fine. … I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have got to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of.

A cynic might wonder whether Tancredo's proposal to take out the two holiest sites in Islam is a pathetic bid for attention by a candidate whose support among Republican voters is stuck at 1 percent, below Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. If you listen to the audio, you'll observe that people in the restaurant had begun talking rather loudly among themselves when Tancredo brought this Mecca and Medina idea up (and, amazingly, scarcely piped down as he discussed it).

The problem with this hypothesis is that it wasn't the first time this imbecilic bigot displayed an inability to distinguish the relatively small group of active Islamist terrorists (numbering at best in the thousands) from the significantly larger group of people who are Muslims but do not intend to attack the United States (approximately 1 billion, representing about one-sixth of the world population, a few million of whom live here in the United States). Tancredo caused an uproar two years ago when he leveled the same threat on a talk-radio program in Florida. In a July 2005 op-ed, Tancredo answered his critics thusly:

Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed. … Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks … this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.

Tancredo is, of course, right that many mainstream Muslims have rationalized terrorist attacks against the West. But (at risk of belaboring the obvious) many mainstream Muslims have not. How destruction of Islam's holiest sites could possibly represent appropriate punishment even for the trash-talkers is not immediately obvious. More prosaically, how exactly do you win a war against the world's second-most-popular religion? We tried it during the Crusades. It was a really good effort, but it didn't work. True, now we have nukes. But they have nukes, too, congressman. Ever visited Jerusalem? If not, I suggest you take the wife and kids there soon, because you won't have the opportunity after you put your homeland defense plan into action.

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2171667/

yavoon · 08-04-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Yavoon ... NO.

Saudi Arabian leadership, goverment and society do NOT support terrorism! Read up on it, bin-Laden has called for an overthrow of their governemnt, and is a wanted criminal there - for 9/11!! The Saudis have themselves been victims of several terror attacks by fundamentalists. They are a very rich, very peaceful country ... they are come very close to extending an olive branch toward Israel. The only reason they do not (according to George Will), is fear of reprisal from jihadi fundamentalists.

They are VERY moderate politically and in world relations! YES - you are right - their society is abominably restrictive, they treat women like possessions and their human rights record is not great. But they always despised and feuded with Sadaam Hussein and the Iranian ayatollahs. They have never advocated war or terror, and they do their level-best to straddle the Israeli-Palestinian fence.

Saudi Arabia is one of our FIVE MOST IMPORTANT allies.

The Saudi Arabians remind me of kids I knew at Regis H.S who had wealthy parents. The wealthier the parents, the worse the kids were with dope, cutting, cigarettes, the full gamut of rebellion. Yes - many terrorists are Saudi citizens. But if the U.S. places someone on the Terror Watch List, the Saudis observe that list. 100% true.

bin laden is not the synonim for terrorism. and pretty much every state that supports terrorism explicitly, implicitly, conditionally, or covertly has in some way been burned by some group. that HARDLY means the saudi establishment doesn't actively support the #1 ideology of creating terrorists on the planet.

also it should be noted, saudi arabia is ACTUALLY VERY POOR. I'm not entirely sure what propaganda hole ur digging into to get ur information about the saudi's but it seems to be a pretty bad one. saudi arabia's HDI(thats human development index) is 76, for those checking kazakhstan is 79. saudi arabia's GDP per capita is 16000, putting it 47th, right in front of botswana. maybe YOU'VE met some rich saudi's, or read about rich saudi's.

and saudi has more problems then women and laws, they also have huge SLAVERY issues. they import mass quantities of labor and a lot of it, especially domestic help lives as defacto slaves in saudi arabia. the US has even arrested saudi's in america for practicing slavery.

BroncoBuff · 08-04-2007, 07:28 PM

Yes ... I looked it up, and you are quite correct about their social ills. But if you expand the definition of terrorism that far, the United States is also pretty high on the list. My point - which you've evaded - is that the Saudis DENOUNCE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM MORE THAN ANY MIDEAST STATE. And luckily, this most oil-abundant nation in the world is a staunch U.S. ally. We are lucky for that. THAT'S what I meant.

yavoon · 08-04-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Yes ... I looked it up, and you are quite correct about their social ills. But if you expand the definition of terrorism that far, the United States is also pretty high on the list. My point - which you've evaded - is that the Saudis DENOUNCE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM MORE THAN ANY MIDEAST STATE. And luckily, this most oil-abundant nation in the world is a staunch U.S. ally. We are lucky for that. THAT'S what I meant.

the saudi's ARE islamic fundamentalists, they practice sharia, the whole 9 yards of sharia. even the really unpleasant sharia like this from the koran:

5:38 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

I wouldn't call us lucky for the saudi's I guess its decently useful they don't hate us as much as iran, though the saudi's cause a lot more worldwide terrorism then the iranians do. and lets not even get started on the textbooks they export, make hitler blush. but well I guess we're stuck w/ the saudi's.

mhgaffney · 08-04-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Yavoon ... NO.

Saudi Arabian leadership, goverment and society do NOT support terrorism! Read up on it, bin-Laden has called for an overthrow of their governemnt, and is a wanted criminal there - for 9/11!! The Saudis have themselves been victims of several terror attacks by fundamentalists. They are a very rich, very peaceful country ... they are come very close to extending an olive branch toward Israel. The only reason they do not (according to George Will), is fear of reprisal from jihadi fundamentalists.

They are VERY moderate politically and in world relations! YES - you are right - their society is abominably restrictive, they treat women like possessions and their human rights record is not great. But they always despised and feuded with Sadaam Hussein and the Iranian ayatollahs. They have never advocated war or terror, and they do their level-best to straddle the Israeli-Palestinian fence.

Saudi Arabia is one of our FIVE MOST IMPORTANT allies.

The Saudi Arabians remind me of kids I knew at Regis H.S who had wealthy parents. The wealthier the parents, the worse the kids were with dope, cutting, cigarettes, the full gamut of rebellion. Yes - many terrorists are Saudi citizens. But if the U.S. places someone on the Terror Watch List, the Saudis observe that list. 100% true.

Bronco Buff -- I suggest that you read Sleeping with the Enemy -- by former CIA agent, Robert Baer.

The Saudi regime is one of the most corrupt governents on the planet. They funded bin laden for many years (in concert with the US CIA) and exported their extremist Wahabist version of Islam during the campaign to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan

This resulted in the creaton of hundreds of fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan.

The Saudis also supported the Taliban. One of three states who did -- the others being Pakistan and -- briefly -- the US of A.

We are embraced in a death grip -- love/hate -- with the Saudis. The relationship is corrupt to the core. No good will come of it. It wil continue until the house of Saud is overthrown by Islamic radicals -- or until America has the sense to invest its $$$$ in clean energy alternatives and wean ourself away from our present addiction to oil.

Until then -- nothing will improve. Indeed -- things will continue to get worse. A lot worse.

mosca · 08-05-2007, 05:06 PM

Right on - I don't buy this notion that the Saudi government has no ties to Islamic fundamentalism, that it's only a small portion of the population that's carrying on with that. It's kind of muddled, but the Saudi government (or at least some influential members of it) has ties to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Which all ties into concern about the impending weapons deal with that state.

08-04-2007, 06:16 AM	#4
BroncoBuff *************** Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 25,433 Adopt-a-Bronco: QUANTERUS SMITH	Yavoon ... NO. Saudi Arabian leadership, goverment and society do NOT support terrorism! Read up on it, bin-Laden has called for an overthrow of their governemnt, and is a wanted criminal there - for 9/11!! The Saudis have themselves been victims of several terror attacks by fundamentalists. They are a very rich, very peaceful country ... they are come very close to extending an olive branch toward Israel. The only reason they do not (according to George Will), is fear of reprisal from jihadi fundamentalists. They are VERY moderate politically and in world relations! YES - you are right - their society is abominably restrictive, they treat women like possessions and their human rights record is not great. But they always despised and feuded with Sadaam Hussein and the Iranian ayatollahs. They have never advocated war or terror, and they do their level-best to straddle the Israeli-Palestinian fence. Saudi Arabia is one of our FIVE MOST IMPORTANT allies. The Saudi Arabians remind me of kids I knew at Regis H.S who had wealthy parents. The wealthier the parents, the worse the kids were with dope, cutting, cigarettes, the full gamut of rebellion. Yes - many terrorists are Saudi citizens. But if the U.S. places someone on the Terror Watch List, the Saudis observe that list. 100% true. Last edited by BroncoBuff; 08-04-2007 at 06:19 AM..

08-04-2007, 11:03 AM	#6
El Minion Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,531	More on his rationalization. ---------- Tom Tancredo's Final Solution Meet the biggest fool running for president. By Timothy Noah Posted Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, at 5:17 PM ET Wouldn't you know it. The Weekly World News announces that it will cease publication (it will retain its presence on the Web), and within a week there surfaces irrefutable evidence that space aliens ate Tom Tancredo's brain. Addressing 30 people at the Family Table restaurant in Osceola, Iowa, the presidential candidate and Republican House member from Colorado outlined his highly original position on homeland defense: If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. But as I say, if I am wrong, fine. … I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have got to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of. A cynic might wonder whether Tancredo's proposal to take out the two holiest sites in Islam is a pathetic bid for attention by a candidate whose support among Republican voters is stuck at 1 percent, below Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. If you listen to the audio, you'll observe that people in the restaurant had begun talking rather loudly among themselves when Tancredo brought this Mecca and Medina idea up (and, amazingly, scarcely piped down as he discussed it). The problem with this hypothesis is that it wasn't the first time this imbecilic bigot displayed an inability to distinguish the relatively small group of active Islamist terrorists (numbering at best in the thousands) from the significantly larger group of people who are Muslims but do not intend to attack the United States (approximately 1 billion, representing about one-sixth of the world population, a few million of whom live here in the United States). Tancredo caused an uproar two years ago when he leveled the same threat on a talk-radio program in Florida. In a July 2005 op-ed, Tancredo answered his critics thusly: Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed. … Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks … this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries. Tancredo is, of course, right that many mainstream Muslims have rationalized terrorist attacks against the West. But (at risk of belaboring the obvious) many mainstream Muslims have not. How destruction of Islam's holiest sites could possibly represent appropriate punishment even for the trash-talkers is not immediately obvious. More prosaically, how exactly do you win a war against the world's second-most-popular religion? We tried it during the Crusades. It was a really good effort, but it didn't work. True, now we have nukes. But they have nukes, too, congressman. Ever visited Jerusalem? If not, I suggest you take the wife and kids there soon, because you won't have the opportunity after you put your homeland defense plan into action. Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate. Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2171667/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-04-2007, 02:05 AM	#1
mosca grand pubah honest optimism Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,950 Adopt-a-Bronco: Bubby Brister	State Department vs. presidential candidates I'm not 100% sure why they think this is that big of a deal. As if there's not already a ton of animosity between the U.S. and many Muslims. It seems like almost every day sees news reports of Hezbollah, Hamas, or Pakistani extremists conducting anti-West protests in the streets. Then there's the controversy following the Dutch Mohammed cartoons. Let's not forget the uproar following the Pope's recent comments. Oh yeah, the invasion of Iraq - didn't bode too well with a lot of the more sensitive Muslims either. Where does the State Department get the idea that it needs to remind 2008 presidential candidates that they should muzzle some of their remarks about the Muslim world? A lot of these people are flat-out determined to hate us for one reason or another. The U.S. being labeled as "The Great Satan" isn't exactly a recent event. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Department cringes as candidates spout off Comments on sensitive diplomatic issues arouse officials’ ire By MATTHEW LEE - The Associated Press WASHINGTON — The State Department has a message for White House candidates wanting to expound on sensitive diplomatic issues: Shut up. Traditionally silent during presidential campaigns filled with divisive foreign policy debates, the department on Friday delivered a rebuke to would-be nominees of both parties whose recent comments have complicated U.S. efforts to overcome deep suspicion about the war on terrorism in the Muslim world. “Those who wish to hold office can speak for themselves and whoever is elected in 2008 and comes into office in 2009 will then be in a position to talk about what they intend or plan to do,” said deputy spokesman Tom Casey, a career foreign service officer. First it was Barack Obama’s talk of dialogue with dictators and invading Pakistan to kill Islamist militants. Then Hillary Clinton refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons to that end. Now, the Democratic front-runners have been joined by radical Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who threatened to bomb Muslim holy sites to stop terror attacks. The State Department had hoped to steer clear of controversy, complaints and public protests sparked by Obama and Clinton, but Tancredo’s comments bumped up against the limit of diplomatic patience. Casey had unusually harsh words for Tancredo, R-Colo., who said this week that if elected he would threaten to bomb the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites, to deter attacks on the United States. “It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion,” a clearly agitated Casey told reporters, shaking his head in disgust. In Pakistan, the country’s Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday it was a matter of “grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election.” http://www.thestate.com/nation/story/136905.html

08-04-2007, 03:04 AM	#2
BroncoBuff *************** Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 25,433 Adopt-a-Bronco: QUANTERUS SMITH	Tancredo is an idiot ... the Saudis are a staunch ally, and are hostile toward - even fearful of - jihadist Islam. I'm getting tired of people blaming the Saudis because so many terrorists were raised there ... where's the logic in that? There's an unusual number of serial killers from Maryland (I think its Maryland). Does that mean we should cut off federal aid to Maryland? Saudi Arabia is a bit like the United States has become ... wealthy and comfortable enough to give their children lots of free rein to cause mischief. The Saudi goverment is very moderate - they've even talked nice about Israel. __ These State Department cautions to the candidates are happening for one reason only: The Iraqi War. Had the United States sent tens of thousands of troops into Tora Bora to find bin-Laden and Al-Quaeda promptly - even the complaining Muslims State is fearful of would have understood. With 9/11 fresh in our memories, few would've objected to military action, even on sovereign Pakistani soil. But now, after FIVE YEARS of Iraqi occupation, even Pakistan says no. Rumsfeld called off a high-confidence strike on al-Quaeda at the least second for fear of "angering" the Pakis, and now Obama is criticized for taking a tough stand on catching bin-Laden. WTF has this world come to Now we can't even track bin-Laden down?!

08-04-2007, 06:21 AM	#5
BroncoBuff *************** Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 25,433 Adopt-a-Bronco: QUANTERUS SMITH	bin-Laden and indeed MANY terrorists have had their citizenship revoked by the Saudis. bin-Laden is a wanted man in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis used their influence in the Sudan to have al-Quaeda and OBL kicked out ... that's when they went back to Afghanistan.

08-04-2007, 07:28 PM	#8
BroncoBuff *************** Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 25,433 Adopt-a-Bronco: QUANTERUS SMITH	Yes ... I looked it up, and you are quite correct about their social ills. But if you expand the definition of terrorism that far, the United States is also pretty high on the list. My point - which you've evaded - is that the Saudis DENOUNCE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM MORE THAN ANY MIDEAST STATE. And luckily, this most oil-abundant nation in the world is a staunch U.S. ally. We are lucky for that. THAT'S what I meant.

08-05-2007, 05:06 PM	#11
mosca grand pubah honest optimism Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,950 Adopt-a-Bronco: Bubby Brister	Right on - I don't buy this notion that the Saudi government has no ties to Islamic fundamentalism, that it's only a small portion of the population that's carrying on with that. It's kind of muddled, but the Saudi government (or at least some influential members of it) has ties to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Which all ties into concern about the impending weapons deal with that state.