PDA

View Full Version : Saudi Arabia Attacks The United States!



Gayle in MD
03-10-2010, 07:37 AM
Ok, it was a hook, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif but what if this had been the headline, on 9/11, instead of calling them terrorists?

If we really want to end terrorist attacks, and hold the countries who finance them, or give them sanctuary, to account, would that Headline, or tactic have been far more effective?

Just wondering....and, I can think of a hellova lot of bad things that would never have happened, if this had been our approach from the start.

G.

Chilled
03-10-2010, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, it was a hook, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif but what if this had been the headline, on 9/11, instead of calling them terrorists?

If we really want to end terrorist attacks, and hold the countries who finance them, or give them sanctuary, to account, would that Headline, or tactic have been far more effective?

Just wondering....and, I can think of a hellova lot of bad things that would never have happened, if this had been our approach from the start.</div></div>

Interesting thought.

My first reaction would that it would only be truthful to name the country or countries in that way if it was reliable at that time to conclude that the "country" or the "state" concerned had given the funding or the sanctuary as opposed to individuals who were nationals or residents of those countries doing it without state knowledge and/or approval.

Would it be more "effective" is a different question of course. As we all know truthfulness isn't a prerequisite for choosing a course of action or for examining whether it would be effective.

In the case of 9/11 that brings a whole shed load of things into play. For every bad thing that you consider happened but would not have happened in that contingency there may be a corresponding different bad thing which didn't happen but would have happened or a good thing which did happen and still would have happened but not quite as smoothly.

It would be a very complicated hypothesis and calculation to work out all the angles on that for sure. I only have about 30 years tops to live so won't try lol

Gayle in MD
03-10-2010, 08:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, it was a hook, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif but what if this had been the headline, on 9/11, instead of calling them terrorists?

If we really want to end terrorist attacks, and hold the countries who finance them, or give them sanctuary, to account, would that Headline, or tactic have been far more effective?

Just wondering....and, I can think of a hellova lot of bad things that would never have happened, if this had been our approach from the start.</div></div>

Interesting thought.

My first reaction would that it would only be truthful to name the country or countries in that way if it was reliable at that time to conclude that the "country" or the "state" concerned had given the funding or the sanctuary as opposed to individuals who were nationals or residents of those countries doing it without state knowledge and/or approval.

Would it be more "effective" is a different question of course. As we all know truthfulness isn't a prerequisite for choosing a course of action or for examining whether it would be effective.

In the case of 9/11 that brings a whole shed load of things into play. For every bad thing that you consider happened but would not have happened in that contingency there may be a corresponding different bad thing which didn't happen but would have happened or a good thing which did happen and still would have happened but not quite as smoothly.

It would be a very complicated hypothesis and calculation to work out all the angles on that for sure. I only have about 30 years tops to live so won't try lol

</div></div>

Unintended consequences are indeed hard to predict. I have a very hard time believing that in the case of Saudi Arabia, their top Prince, and his vast intelligence capabilities, were not aware of whom, and how, money was being sent to finance these home grown terrorists, and ever more remote, that they didn't know exactly where bin Laden was, and whom, and how, to get to him.

It seems to me, that the use of the words, "War On Terror" opened up a vast range of actions which were not in our best interests.

It also seems to me, the policy statements, "With us or against" us, for example, don't really indicate the manner in which those who were financing, and had always financed al Qaeda, were actually dealt with.

True, they were in Afghanistan at the time, but their money came through Saudi Arabia, and Dubai.

I realize there were good results in freezing a lot of that money, much of it now must be sent through runners, but I believe the money flow has just found new venues.

What DID Saudi Arabia do to support the effort? What are they doing now? Then also, there is the question, we invaded Iraq, when they had nothing to do with 9/11, nor any terrorist organization.

My feeling is that given the fear mongering that went on, much of what we did actually increased their will, their power, and their resources.

Seems there should have been a more effective way tohold those responsible for financing them all those pre 9/11 years, to full account, and wouldn't the Saudi's themnselves have had the power to bring those individuals to justice?

Just thoughts about all of it.

G.

pooltchr
03-10-2010, 09:14 AM
Imagine if the headline had been "United States attacks itself" after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Makes just about as much sense!!!!

Steve

cushioncrawler
03-10-2010, 02:50 PM
I woz reading that if u made a list of muslim countrys that are friendly to usofa down to those that hate at the bottom -- that in fakt the list iz upside down when talking about what the people aktually feel -- eg saudi's hate usoda more than anybody.
madMac.

Deeman3
03-10-2010, 04:40 PM
Nuke 'Em!

Can't ever be too careful these days. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
03-10-2010, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I woz reading that if u made a list of muslim countrys that are friendly to usofa down to those that hati at the bottom )- that in fakt the list iz upside down when talking about what the people aktually feel -- eg saudi's hate usoda more than anybody.
madMac. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Mac, I can tell you read books. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Chilled
03-10-2010, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I woz reading that if u made a list of muslim countrys that are friendly to usofa down to those that hate at the bottom -- that in fakt the list iz upside down when talking about what the people aktually feel -- eg saudi's hate usoda more than anybody.
madMac. </div></div>

On just about all known historical and current evidence, arabs in general hate other arabs far more than they hate USA. They have hated and stabbed each other in the back figuratively and literally for centuries, none more so than today.

The sort of popularity rating lists you talk about Mac are probably of little significance, whatever findings the compilers of them come up with. For a start there are too many undefinables etc. For example the term "the country of Saudi Arabia" means precious little to many arab occupants of that country. Yemen is another particularly stark example of trinbalism far superceding any senses of national identity or borders.

Arabs lie routinely as a profession to each other and there is no reason to think that they would not do so to pollsters who would try to establish their feelings towards other nations.

All that really matters right now to USA is that Saudi Arabia continues with the well established understanding that they will do what they are told to when they are told to. There's no indication of any change to that.

hippiepool
03-10-2010, 05:53 PM
and would have been more accurate .....