Saudi asked us to come you dumb fuck. Do the Saudi's not have the right to ask us into their country? Is the whole world hostage to these freaks? You have to be the dumbest moron to post here, and we have Rick and had Liet.
They can't do that because too many Americans are stupid enough to protect the criminal sonofabitch. The real shame is we now have a president who is more concerned with his own future than the future of the Nation. If this were not true Obama's first order of business would have been the investigation and prosecution of the Bush Crime Family, because allowing these conspirators to walk away with impunity is certain to encourage similar conduct from future administrations. The fact that the World Court has indicted this man as a war criminal should evoke a more thoughtful response than an offhand invitation to come and get him. This man did serious damage to our Country, not to mention the damage his arrogant incompetence and deliberate criminality has caused in the Middle East.
How do you know he was celebrating and not just some young guy listening to music in his car? Further, are you sure it really was Arabic music? Around here we had some meat heads attacking Assyrian Christians after 9/11 thinking they were Arabic while Sikhs also got assaulted on the streets because some dumb ass thought the Sikh head garb looked Arabic to them.
For the benefit of those who are sufficiently intelligent to understand, the Saudi government allowed Bush-1 to install the bin Sultan base to facilitate Operation Desert Storm -- not to serve as a permanent base in Mecca, which was the basis of bin Laden's demand for removal. But your adolescent compulsion to issue personal insults identifies you as a moron whose contributions are a waste of time and space. So off you go to my Ignore list.
Bin Laden should have attacked the Saudis then - not only for the invite, but for the reluctance to ask them to leave. Or Bin Laden and his band of merry girls could have grown the fuck up and gotten over it.
Usama bin Laden was not only a Saudi but a member of the Saudi Royal Family. Fifteen of the shahids who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudi. So the obvious question is why did we attack Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia? And the answer is the proximity of the Bush dynasty to the Saudi Royal Family. Perhaps if the bin Sultan base were the only provocation to Al Qaeda Usama bin Laden might have addressed his grievance to only the Saudi Royal Family. But it wasn't the only provocation, nor was it the most enduring. Our support of Israel has been a thorn in the side of Muslim extremists for decades and probably was the primary factor enabling bin Laden to organize the 9/11 attack. But speculation aside, it is interesting to note that shortly after the 9/11 attack Bush did remove the base and he pressured Sharon to evict the settlers from Gaza, which was the main complaint against Israel's expansion. If he had made such concessions early on the world would be a much better place for America today. And while your reference to bin Laden's "band of merry girls" is cute and funny there is nothing cute and funny about the 9/11 attack and what has followed.
Who gives Osama Bin Ladin the fucking right to speak for all Muslims? By "devout" Muslims he must mean batshit crazy extremists. So we should abide by anything he says just because it offends him? Who died and left him boss anyway? If the leaders of Saudi Arabia let us in, Osama can complain all he wants. If we curtail or deviate one iota from our plans because of what Osama thinks, we deserve to be enslaved under Sharia Law. I know Muslims who serve in the US Army - they would put a bullet in another Muslims head in a New York minute to defend the life of a fellow US soldier. Because they know how the world really works, coming from Third World poor as shit Sally Struthers in your neighborhood Africa and all. Yes, the world is a tough place, and it's even tougher when you live under Islamic Extremism. That said, I'm on top (as is everyone living in a free nation) and will do what I have to do to stay on top, and keep my fellow citizens on top with me. Nobody will get together to sing Kumbaya in our lifetimes. I can accept that. But if sane mindsets and extremist mindsets clash, I will live and they will die. There's no future for me and mine any other way.
The term is usually applied to mafiosi such as the Lucchese Crime Family, the Gallo Crime Family, et al. But if we combine the effects of every family in the history of the mafia in America it doesn't come close to the damage done to the U.S. by the Bush Crime Family, which includes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Tenet and Gonzales.
I challenge you to ask any devout Muslim you know or can find whether he/she agrees with bin Laden's disposition toward U.S. support of Israel. And get back to me. Go back and read bin Laden's full comment in the excerpt I posted above. How many devout Muslims do you honestly believe would not agree with him? This ridiculous "bring it on" bravado I'm seeing is nothing but coded encouragement to maintain the status quo in the Middle East and keep our fingers crossed that the next 9/11 won't affect me.
That sarcastic reference to Obama while valid is non sequitur. Because even though he is a distinct improvement over Bush Obama has been a gross disappointment to me and to many other Progressives who voted for him.
No. Nor was the provocation. So with that in mind don't you think it's time our government started using its collective head?
So basically having a military base near Mecca and supporting an ally is justification for thousands of innocent people being murdered half a world away? And the US should have shut down the base and ceased their alliance with Israel because it didn't pander to muslim extremists and was a thorn in their side? Seriously?
That' basically what bush said -- on 9/10. But after 9/11 he conceded to bin Laden's demands. What does that tell you? Pay attention to what a bullshitter does, not what he says?
As far as status quo, should we just kick Israel to the curb? Don't see that happening, nor should it. But I do have a solution for kissing Saudi Arabian ass. USE OUR OWN FUCKING OIL! We need to shit or get off the pot, energy -wise. Choosing our sandbox allies because we want a good deal on oil is BULLSHIT! Bite the high fuel prices bullet and cut ourselves off from the whole sandbox once and for all. Then we can truly distance ourselves from that whole region. We won't have to negotiate shit with them or practice any semblance of diplomacy. Fuck worrying about offending any Muslims. We should set up our military forces within (and only at the invitation of) Israel only. The sandbox threatens Europe, too fucking bad. They have the manpower and resources to defend themselves in basically their own backyard.
Evidently it is. And since there is no court we can take it to I suggest the next best thing to do is apply common sense to the situation. Seriousy, yes. That base was intended to be a temporary facility to begin with and the only reason it wasn't removed when Desert Storm was completed is pure militaristic arrogance. Like we don't have military bases in enough foreign countries that we needed one more? I say bin Laden had a legitimate grievance. That base should have been removed after Desert Storm. As for Israel, let's dispense with the term "ally." Great Britain is an ally in the accepted sense of the word, which means we go where they go and they go where we go -- and there are no Israeli boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor were there any Israeli boots on the ground in Vietnam. Israel is not an ally. Israel is a protectorate which, in my view, has been a thorn in our side and a burden around our neck for far too long. So it's time we said goodnight to Israel. And any American undercover Zionist who is sufficiently concerned with Israel's well-being to advocate continuing America's costly and damaging relationship is invited to move to Israel and join the IDF. I take no side in the conflict between Israel and the Arab world. I could not care less if they wiped each other out to the last man standing. But I think the U.S. has done quite enough for Israel and it's time to say it's over.
Again, what gives him the right to take violent action? The Lithuanian Embassy on American soil offends me. Do I have a legitimate claim to fly a jet into a Lithuanian office building, especially since I don't even represent the American government/military?
"Kick Isreal to the curb" is a phrase that alters the true context of the issue. What we need to do is terminate an extremely counterproductive and costly diplomatic relationship. I am quite sure if the situation were reversed the Israeli government wouldn't hesitate to do the same, mainly because they don't have internal pro-America lobbying organizations (i.e., AIPAC and JINSA) imposing on their parliament.
What gave Hitler the right to invade Poland? What gave Japan the right to bomb Pearl Harbor. And what gave Bush the right to invade Iraq? Take him to small claims court, George.
Realistically - without the US in their corner they would be bulldozed into the sea. Surrounded by all sides and vastly outnumbered? Sorry, guess we're paying for the sins of our fathers because we are just too deep in it now. And you think cutting them off will gain us any respect from our true allies? Not likely. It will only embolden the Arab nations and cause catastrophic unrest. Then you'll have a truly "costly diplomatic relationship" on your hands.
If we want to make sure that there are no more terrorist attacks in North America, these attacks will have to continue. Drones are becoming more sophisticated, and I'm sure they're getting much more mileage out of the newer ones. So it shouldn't be that hard to put them up over Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries, and just strike the targets like needed. It is obviously quite effective.
That's the point. Obviously it gets treated differently. Why then? Under the logic given it would make sense. We know the reason why though, it's because millions of Americans would not stand for it, and the government would lose support and potentially even face an armed uprising. The use of tactics like these overseas is no different, and all they are doing is creating a larger pool of people who have a grudge against the US and also maybe have nothing left to lose.
You don't have to be an expert in firefighting to know that it isn't a good idea to pour gasoline onto one.
Your analogy and your concept are wrong. The US doesn't need to react this way on US soil because there are laws that are followed that deal with this. Paki has none and is harboring those who would harm us. When the laws don't work, you have to use what tools you can to deal with it. A good example in the US is the Fed gov't using civil rights laws to go after criminals that are acquitted or not charged in state court when their crimes are fairly obvious. Like the cops in the Rodney King case. Obviously we can't grab them and try them from Paki, so we have no choice but to drone them out.
