Posted on 08/02/2005 2:19:20 AM PDT by 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.
Both are wombs of terrorism....
Both will need to be defeated, in their own turn...
Semper Fi
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?
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?
That Tamimi guy got a large helping of STFU. Good.
This Azzam guy, I mean...
The lies flow like water, the ginned up emotion behind the lies, the false indignation, it's staggering.
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 ............
Wouldn't that be better than using the threat of military force?
"Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: On Whose Side?"
- You can bet your ass that they are not on ours.
Now, HERE is one of the better questions asked today.
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.
The title of this thread should be ;
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia : Which one is worst ?
The "threat" of military force means nothing.
The actual use of military force does.
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.
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.
How do you know that?
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.
How do you know that?
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.