Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: On Whose Side?
MSNBC ^ | 25 July

Posted on 08/02/2005 2:19:20 AM PDT by ttsmi

Crowley: Excuse me Azzam, we do know that madrasas have been hotbeds of this type of activity where the individuals who are in control of the schools are getting funding from Saudi Arabia, from the Wahhabis, to preach this kind of violence and jihad. We know that for a fact.

Tamimi: No, you don't know that for a fact.

Crowley: Yes, we do.

Tamimi: No, we don‘t know that for a fact. That is not true. And this is not about ideology, this is about people disgruntled with politics. There is a political crisis across the world in the Muslim world. And it is true the people came from Leeds are not impoverished, they do not have socio-economic problems, but they've been enraged by what they perceive by a war on Islam. This war on terrorism launched by George W. Bush and allies in the West is perceived by many of them as a war on Islam itself. So long as you don't see this --

Crowley: Azzam, let me clarify something here. The United States has been under attack from these radical Islamists long before the war in Iraq, long before the war in Afghanistan. They were engaged in a jihad, and there was nothing involved in American foreign policy that would have set them off that pre-9/11. They engaged in that kind of jihadist activity against the United States long before we acted against Saddam Hussein. So Afghanistan and Iraq are essentially pretexts. They are just excuses. This active has been going on long before that.

(Excerpt) Read more at danielpipes.org ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: pakistan; saudiarabis; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 08/02/2005 2:19:20 AM PDT by ttsmi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

Do you think the United States needs to take a more aggressive approach towards Saudi Arabia?

Kayyem: I think it does. If you look at the websites and at least some tracking that Western journalists have done, anywhere from 40% to 60% of the suicide bombers, that is important, the suicide bombers, are Saudi nationals. What that means, is likely what is happening in Iraq is that the insurgency is split. You have some people who are Iraqis and willing to bomb things but not to commit suicide on themselves. But then you have the foreign nationals willing to come in, probably followers of Zarqawi, and kill themselves in pursuit of getting America out of Iraq and undermining Iraq's process.

The fact the numbers are so high for this one country, Saudi Arabia, means that either Saudi Arabia has no control over its borders, or has no idea what is going on in its own borders, or more likely simply just doesn't know what to do with it. As we know, unlike Pakistan, as we know Saudi Arabia has been the focus of its own terrorist threats since they focused on Saudi nationals and killing Saudi nationals in the last 3½ years. They have cracked down significantly. Certainly looking at the numbers in Iraq it looks like not enough. And here is the irony of the discussion previously, the more we demand of the countries to crack down on the internal terrorist threats, the less likely it is that they are going to be able to reform towards the democracy that the Bush Administration talks about. Because what we are talking about in Pakistan, the rounding up or Saudi Arabia, certainly the beheadings moments after a terrorist attack, is not the democratic process that you and I envision when we think about can democracy in the Arab world. So there is a tension between being tough on the countries and saying the long term goal is democracy.


2 posted on 08/02/2005 2:20:06 AM PDT by ttsmi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

Both are wombs of terrorism....
Both will need to be defeated, in their own turn...

Semper Fi


3 posted on 08/02/2005 2:37:39 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

What would happen if we dramatically and decisively removed any need for foreign oil over the next five years, starting with decreasing auto fuel usage by, let us say, 35% across the board while reducing the wealth transfer from oil into the hands of Saudi Princes by a good 10% for starters? Wouldn't that be better than using the threat of military force?


4 posted on 08/02/2005 3:23:09 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: river rat
yep.....

It's about 'Islamic' POLITICS.....they are committed to the Islamic Masses-Billions....forever,... and NO ONE ELSE!

else,...what is the political meaning of 'Islamic Political Pilgrimage'

the 'Billions' are theirs,......in more ways than one......

....all Mosques,.... their 'flags'......internationale....NO ONE ELSE COUNTS!

/sarcasm?

5 posted on 08/02/2005 3:28:41 AM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

That Tamimi guy got a large helping of STFU. Good.


6 posted on 08/02/2005 3:28:48 AM PDT by SIDENET ("You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

This Azzam guy, I mean...

The lies flow like water, the ginned up emotion behind the lies, the false indignation, it's staggering.


7 posted on 08/02/2005 3:37:05 AM PDT by Eddie01 (Hello friend, welcome to Leftville. I like you, but I don't like him, you shouldn't either...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01
Those guys still see the world the way they see it.

There's a certain arrogance among Moslems that finds its counterpart only among Western Liberals.

Only way to deal with that sort of thing is ............

8 posted on 08/02/2005 3:42:31 AM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Wouldn't that be better than using the threat of military force?

Better - yes. Realistic – no.
9 posted on 08/02/2005 3:50:21 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

"Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: On Whose Side?"

- You can bet your ass that they are not on ours.


10 posted on 08/02/2005 4:01:09 AM PDT by Tempestuous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

Now, HERE is one of the better questions asked today.


11 posted on 08/02/2005 4:02:44 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

The fact that it is 4 years after 9/11 and the House of Saud is still standing is a testatment to the impotence and corruption of our so-called leaders.


12 posted on 08/02/2005 4:19:07 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

The title of this thread should be ;


Pakistan and Saudi Arabia : Which one is worst ?


13 posted on 08/02/2005 4:33:28 AM PDT by lionheart 247365 (( I.S.L.A.M. ; ) Islam's Spiritual Leaders Advocate Murder .. .. .. ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
I would love to see America energy-independent, if for no other reason than to send these clowns back to the 7th century, where they belong.
14 posted on 08/02/2005 4:36:53 AM PDT by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Wouldn't that be better than using the threat of military force?

The "threat" of military force means nothing.
The actual use of military force does.

15 posted on 08/02/2005 4:50:10 AM PDT by ASA Vet (The WOT should have ended 9-12-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ttsmi

Thanks for spoon-feeding us the part you think is important. What next? Breathing lessons ala AlQueda?

Almost forgot. They officially don't exist anymore, Right?

Read this interview for the content that lays between the lines. Pipes is dead-on as usual. Crowley(NBC) is airhead news doll, the others are slimey Enemy Agents lying right in our faces.

When you get weary of reading your own little "instructions" to Bush,Rummy et al on how to run things, Pipes might be a place to bookmark and refer to.


16 posted on 08/02/2005 5:00:42 AM PDT by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

It is much more efficient and and effective to completely remove oil revenues from all the wrong people that are now receiving them. They are then defeated without firing a shot.


17 posted on 08/02/2005 12:22:11 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

How do you know that?


18 posted on 08/02/2005 12:23:21 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
It is much more efficient and and effective to completely remove oil revenues

Your solution

starting with decreasing auto fuel usage by, let us say, 35% across the board

is unrealistic and punishes the US more than the rags.

They are then defeated without firing a shot.

The reverse would be true. We'd be defeated without our firing a shot.

19 posted on 08/02/2005 12:32:58 PM PDT by ASA Vet (The WOT should have ended 9-12-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
How do you know that?

Do I know it as an established fact? No. I am familiar with the American Consumer and the power of the envirowacko crowd. Your statement – “…decreasing auto fuel usage by, let us say, 35% across the board while reducing the wealth transfer from oil into the hands of Saudi Princes by a good 10% for starters?” - would require a massive change in consumer habits.
What would it take to decrease auto fuel consumption by 35%? People like me would have to scrap our current cars and buy a hybrid. I’m not ready – nor can I afford – to do that. A lot of people would also have to sell their homes and move closer to work or quit their jobs and try to find employment closer to home. Many city zoning laws would have to change to allow people to live and work in the same general area.
How would we cut Saudi’s oil income by 10%? Opening American oil fields and building a few new refineries would be a start – but the environmentalists would be in open armed revolt.
20 posted on 08/02/2005 12:43:01 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson