Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

al Qaeda & Saudi Arabia bed buddies!Follow

#1 Jun 21 2004 at 6:17 PM Rating: Decent
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/21/alaoofi.ap/index.html


When the al Qaeda leader died hours after Paul Johnson did, I knew the Saudi's were in direct negotiations with Abdulaziz al-Muqrin for a while which is dis-heartening to say the least.

So now that we know the Saudi's negotiate with terrorists, how will we respond?
#2 Jun 21 2004 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:


So now that we know the Saudi's negotiate with terrorists, how will we respond?


Keep sending them tons of money, I imagine. The Saudi's are our favoriate tyrannical theocratic monarchy.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Jun 21 2004 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
We all know Saudi Arabia has locations and names of al Qaeda members, so why isn't Bush tearing into their country like Iraq! This beheading could have been avoided, not by releasing the prisoners, but by tightening the noose on Saudi Arabia.

The war on terror. What a joke.
#4 Jun 21 2004 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Gadin wrote:
We all know Saudi Arabia has locations and names of al Qaeda members, so why isn't Bush tearing into their country like Iraq!

Oil
#5 Jun 21 2004 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Iraq has oil too. So why is Saudi Arabia above the law. If it's based on the amount of oil they have then Paul Johnson died so I could fill up my tank at a reasonable price, which is sickening.
#6 Jun 21 2004 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
**
450 posts
Quote:
So now that we know the Saudi's negotiate with terrorists, how will we respond?


"...Um, Your Highness, sir, we hate to bother you, but do you think you can... you know... maybe not give Al Queda any more money. We'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Please don't get mad and fool around with our oil supply, please?"

#7 Jun 21 2004 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
*
94 posts
First, Iraq has no were near the oil supply that Saudi Arabia does.

Second, I am getting tired of jerking off the Saudies, but, when compared to other nations of the middle-east Saudi arabia is actually a fairly open and liberal country. Who else can we ally with in the middle-east? Iran? Syria? No, they are just as bad as Iraq, hell, they are even worse as it pertains to their support of terrorism.

Unfortuantly, as our foreign relations go when discussing the middle-east, it becomes a matter of choosing a lesser evil.
#11 Jun 22 2004 at 12:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
82 posts
Lordimsorry is right. Saudi Arabia dug its hole a generation ago, and is having real trouble backing out of it now. The current government (various princes) are divided about going hard-line Islamic or moderate western, so they sit on the fence. If Bush pushed them too strongly, the pride of the Arabic people would push them into the hard-line Islamic camp. Then we would clearly have one more enemy. With patience and quiet assistance, maybe they can peacefully be brought over to the moderate side. Bush is playing it right, and its not just about the price of oil.

Lezhur
#12 Jun 22 2004 at 2:02 AM Rating: Good
But the Prince almost won the Cannonball Run on 4 separate occasions, he can't be evil.

Quote:
When the al Qaeda leader died hours after Paul Johnson did, I knew the Saudi's were in direct negotiations with Abdulaziz al-Muqrin for a while which is dis-heartening to say the least.


I failed to see any proof of this, could you let me know what you are basing this on, maybe I overlooked something. I thought the official story was that someone got the license plate of the car that dropped of the body, and they tracked them down from there?

Maybe I am wrong, it happened once before.
#13 Jun 22 2004 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
*
94 posts
Quote:
license plate of the car that dropped of the body


That sounds about right to me :)
#14 Jun 23 2004 at 8:28 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I failed to see any proof of this, could you let me know what you are basing this on, maybe I overlooked something


Saw it also on C-SPAN the other day.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/

Edited, Wed Jun 23 09:30:53 2004 by Gadin
#15 Jun 23 2004 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

If Bush pushed them too strongly, the pride of the Arabic people would push them into the hard-line Islamic camp. Then we would clearly have one more enemy. With patience and quiet assistance, maybe they can peacefully be brought over to the moderate side.


He's giving money to the very people who fund terror attacks. He may as well fly into Damascus, get off a plane and start handing wads of $100 bills out to Hammas leaders. "Playing it right" would be having foriegn policy at least marginaly consistent with your rhetoric.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#16 Jun 23 2004 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
644 posts
I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation that Bush would sever ties with a country that his family and he have been in bed with for years.

You don't **** where you eat. Unfortunately, that means that he'll continue to give U.S. dollars to a country that directly and indirectly helps and funds terrorist organizations.

Grady
____________________________
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
#17 Jun 27 2004 at 12:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,499 posts
We can't press the Saudi's too hard because it's been estimated that they have almost 1 Trillion dollars invested in the US - in banks and business dealings. If we pissed them off and they pulled a lot of that money out of the US, well, our economy would take a beating that would take a very long time to recover from.

Of course, we also do not want to put pressure on them because we are so dependant on oil in the US and would not want our major supplier to cut us off, or restrict the flow of that black gold.


#18 Jun 27 2004 at 2:10 AM Rating: Decent
*
136 posts
That's right Kundalini... We'd have to open ANWR then, wouldn't we? Damn!

I don't have a link for you, but I did some papers on ANWR in college. The land they'd need to develop would be about 77,000 acres... a lot of land right? Detrimental to the Reserve right? NOPE! 77k acres would be less than 1 percent of the Reserve. Guess what? Water will always find its way... the fish will swim up the stream, the caribou will migrate over roads <gasp!>, and we get to see what kind of oil reserves are right here in Alaska. Then we can bomb the whole middle east (after getting our troops out), and not have to worry about them.

/me hates everyone right now.

why is it so hard for me to type correctly when i'm ticked off?

Edited, Sun Jun 27 03:11:12 2004 by SolarFire
#19 Jun 27 2004 at 3:08 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,499 posts
Umm, ANWR will not be able to supply the US with the same amount of oil that we get from Saudi Arabia. How much oil is in ANWR you ask? According to a report from the ANWR website, there is anywhere between "600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end." If measures passed this year and the US were to go ahead with drilling there, all of the reports I have seen have estimated that the earliest real oil production would not start until, again at the earliest, 2010-2012. Drilling in ANWR would also affect more than 1% of the land there, according to their website, it would affect at least 8% of the land in the reserve.

How much oil does Saudi Arabia have? According to a report from the Saudis, they have about 1.2 trillion barrels left in their reserves. That is one heck of a difference.

An interesting factoid from a US Navy website is "boosting the fuel efficiency of cars in the United States by a mere 1.5 miles-per-gallon would save more oil than is estimated to lie under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
#20 Jun 27 2004 at 8:59 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Drilling in ANWR is only an issue because of who'd get all the contracts to do the drilling and refining of the oil. No one thinks there's a reasonable case to be made that it has some sort of long term benefit.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Jun 27 2004 at 9:31 AM Rating: Decent
*
136 posts
/shrug
No one really knows how much oil is in ANWR. I don't know what the hell was my problem last night when I was posting. I usually act like I've got at least 3 on-duty brain cells.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 242 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (242)