Saudi Polls show WIDE Support for Bin Laden

[Razorguns]

Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric, though few want him to rule.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/poll.binladen/index.html

Well ghee, THAT'S a surprise huh??

 

[bluepeter]

Was the poll before or after W's unilateral invasion of Iraq?

 

[AAP]

That's cause them stoneheads over there actually think it is Bin in eminems video Without Me.

 

[jerseyart]

Why would that be shocking. He is a product of that society and not an aberration. He has always been popular with the Saudi people, which is why the royal family up until recently has been careful not to piss him off. Further they've been quietly buying him off for over a decade.

 

[Razorguns]

Ghee Bush, you dumbass. Put 2 and 2 together. WHERE do you think his SUPPORT to help him is obviously gonna come from huh? It ain't coming from Costa Rica or Hawaii. Why don't you concentrate on Saudi Arabia if you really want to *stop* terrorism? Last time I checked *19* of them attacked us and are still shooting Americans in streets there.

big thank you for the oil we buy from them. lovely huh?

 

[MAX 300]

big thank you for the oil we buy from them. lovely huh?

Exactly.

Think about where your dollars are ending up, next time you fill up at the bowser.

 

[manny78]

Invade them if you have balls !

 

[75th]

Ghee Bush, you dumbass. Put 2 and 2 together. WHERE do you think his SUPPORT to help him is obviously gonna come from huh? It ain't coming from Costa Rica or Hawaii. Why don't you concentrate on Saudi Arabia if you really want to *stop* terrorism? Last time I checked *19* of them attacked us and are still shooting Americans in streets there.

big thank you for the oil we buy from them. lovely huh?

He knows that full well. There is too much money involved. Clinton was the same way.

 

[bluepeter]

He knows that full well. There is too much money involved. Clinton was the same way.

Very true but Clinton didn't declare war on terrorism and then unilaterally invade a country that had no proven ties to the terrorists he was at war with.

 

[75th]

Very true but Clinton didn't declare war on terrorism

True.

and then unilaterally invade a country that had no proven ties to the terrorists he was at war with.

You and I have been through this before.

 

[Ffactor]

Ghee Bush, you dumbass. Why don't you concentrate on Saudi Arabia if you really want to *stop* terrorism? Last time I checked *19* of them attacked us and are still shooting Americans in streets there.

big thank you for the oil we buy from them. lovely huh?

Yeah but we attacked Iraq twice, they are all the same anyway.

 

[Code]

Osama is a Saudi.
11 of the 9/11 hijackers are Saudi.

Unemployment among young adults in Saudi is like 65%.
They literally have nothing better to do.

The Kingdom of SA imports almost 90% of their workforce, most of it are low paying jobs no one in the kingdom want.

 

[jerseyart]

Razorguns wrote

Ghee Bush, you dumbass. Put 2 and 2 together. WHERE do you think his SUPPORT to help him is obviously gonna come from huh? It ain't coming from Costa Rica or Hawaii. Why don't you concentrate on Saudi Arabia if you really want to *stop* terrorism? Last time I checked *19* of them attacked us and are still shooting Americans in streets there.

It's a subtle point apparently easily missed by many, but the Saudi's are not akin to the hostile regime that was run by Saddam Hussein.

The Saudi's are a dictatorship which has been historically extremely friendly to the US, both publicly, and more importantly behind the scenes, especially with respect to oil policy. They are forced to maintain certain overt policies to avoid regime change. It's ridiculous to suggest we should be invading them, as it would serve no useful purpose, and actually run counter to our interests, including the war on terrorism. More realistically I imagine it is just a lame attempt on your part to obfuscate the issues in Iraq

big thank you for the oil we buy from them. lovely huh?

Oil is a fungible commodity. We don't do them any favors by buying their oil. We are likely not even the biggest purchaser of their oil, although even if we were it would be irrelevant. Oil prices are determined by overall demand. It's not like buying cars or tv sets. Their oil would sell regardless of who the direct consumer wished to purchase from.

 

[Y_lifter]

A Year ago he was free to rain destruction on anyone that disagreed with him.

That may have skewed this poll..

 

[Razorguns]

So in essence...we should just idly sit around and let saudi's keep planning on attacking us.

Great policy towards fighting terrorism.

19 Saudi's attack us on 9/11 and we focus on afghanistan and iraq. Something is fucked up here.

That's like 19 Canadian's blowing up the White House, and we send troops to Mexico.

 

[Code]

The kingdom of SA spends a great deal of time layering US politician's pockets with money.

America PUT SA on the oil map, in 1939 an american oil company joined forces with the SA royal family to start the first oil drilling. We brought them from medival clan warfare into modern times.

As such, they're culturally struggling to find a middle ground between their fundamentalist beliefs and accepting modern concepts and beliefs. They were brought into the modern age so fast, it left them reeling, decades later with the cultural fallout.

It's totally understable why the old guard fundamentalists want to destroy the US, because we have done just that to them. The youth sign on simply because they're bored and have nothing better to do.

So in essence...we should just idly sit around and let saudi's keep planning on attacking us.

Great policy towards fighting terrorism.

19 Saudi's attack us on 9/11 and we focus on afghanistan and iraq. Something is fucked up here.

That's like 19 Canadian's blowing up the White House, and we send troops to Mexico.

 

[Razorguns]

true true.

let's go for a beer.

 

[jerseyart]

Razorguns wrote,

So in essence...we should just idly sit around and let saudi's keep planning on attacking us.

The "Saudi's" never attacked us, so your premise is fundamentally flawed. the saudi royal family had nothing to do with 9/11.

To the contrary, any numer of terrorists could have been used to attack us on 9/11, from a number of different countries. Saudi citizens were specifically chosen by Bin Laden to drive a wedge between the Saudi government and the US. His ultimate goal is an Islamic regime in his native country, a goal he finds impossible to achieve so long as the US continues support for the royals. So in esence what you are proposing is to accomodate Bin Laden. Good call.

19 Saudi's attack us on 9/11 and we focus on afghanistan and iraq. Something is fucked up here.

You may have missed it, since there was very little media coverage, but Al Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan with the complete support and cooperation of the Taliban regime. Iraq was a major supporter of various terror groups who had interests contrary to our own. More to the point, and of greater concern, was the fact that he continued to pursue WMD acquisition in defiant opposition to UN mandates and his own cease fire agreements. While we have yet to locate substantial quantities of those weapons, the Kay report clearly states that Saddam was still pursuing research and acquisition, as well as intentionally covering his tracks in doing so. Just recently we have learned that Iraqi scientists were on loan to Libya to help in their development of a nuclear weapon. By the way, that program has ended, thanks to Bush

That's like 19 Canadian's blowing up the White House, and we send troops to Mexico.

If that really makes any kind of sense to you then there is little I can do to compensate. A certain base level of reasoning competency is required to discuss these issues.

 

[Code]

Razorguns wrote



It's a subtle point apparently easily missed by many, but the Saudi's are not akin to the hostile regime that was run by Saddam Hussein.

Al Queda's largest support was the kingdom of SA.

The Saudi's are a dictatorship which has been historically extremely friendly to the US, both publicly, and more importantly behind the scenes, especially with respect to oil policy. They are forced to maintain certain overt policies to avoid regime change. It's ridiculous to suggest we should be invading them, as it would serve no useful purpose, and actually run counter to our interests, including the war on terrorism. More realistically I imagine it is just a lame attempt on your part to obfuscate the issues in Iraq

Friendly because we got them into the oil business, friendly does not == loyal nor does it equal ally.
The ruling Prince's wife has written MANY million dollar checks to terrorist organizations. NewsWeek had a huge article on it 3-4 months ago.

Oil is a fungible commodity. We don't do them any favors by buying their oil. We are likely not even the biggest purchaser of their oil, although even if we were it would be irrelevant. Oil prices are determined by overall demand. It's not like buying cars or tv sets. Their oil would sell regardless of who the direct consumer wished to purchase from.

The US is the largest consumer of oil in the world. How is it relevant to the issue at hand? The Saudi's use our own money to fund terrorists.

 

[jerseyart]

Code wrote

Al Queda's largest support was the kingdom of SA.

Saudi citizens yes, not the monarchy. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide the same. Sincerely, I'd be interested in knowing if that were the case.

Friendly because we got them into the oil business, friendly does not == loyal nor does it equal ally.
The ruling Prince's wife has written MANY million dollar checks to terrorist organizations. NewsWeek had a huge article on it 3-4 months ago.

As I recall most of the funds were to Palestinian terrorists, most especially suicide bombers. See above.

And you exxagerate the US role in the post war make up of the middle east.

As for ally, I have no wish to debate semantics. As mentioned on the Reagan thread, their cooperation in manipulating oil prices was crucial in the collaspe of the old Soviet regime. So to claim we have never worked jointly is incorrect, and that is but a single example.

The US is the largest consumer of oil in the world. How is it relevant to the issue at hand? The Saudi's use our own money to fund terrorists.

The US purchases oil regardless of political considerations. In point of fact I believe we have switched most of our purchases to S American countries. But that is irrelevant. The Saudi's income is in no way dependent on direct US purchases. They can sell their oil to the general market and it makes no bit of difference to them who is buying. That was my point, simply that we aren't doing them any favors by buying "Saudi" oil.