• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saudi Press: U.S. Blew Up World Trade Center To Create ‘War On Terror’

With "Allies" like Saudi Arabia who needs enemies?!?!

The US and the Saudi's do share a lot of the same interests.

Now you can call that being allies, or you can call it not being allies. But if you do call that not being allies, what would you call the relatively friendly relations between US and the Saudi's?
 
I see this topic quickly devolved into the same bickering between the truthers and the believers.

To assert something as a fact, I need empirical evidence to support the claim. I have no such evidence to assert 9/11 as an inside job. That, however, doesn't prevent me from strongly and persistently questioning the validity of the official account of the incident, especially when you consider its consequences, how it's been reproduced in different guises for different purposes, and most importantly, the indicators supporting the questioning of the official account.

The idea of a false-flag attack for expediency of any kind is by no means outlandish as Operation Northwoods demonstrates. Furthermore, Henry Kissinger said it clearly in response to the 2000's coup and the tumult that ensued: "I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas. And I believe George W. Bush will quickly unite the American people through his foreign policy".

Given the throng of such indicators and the U.S's history of maniacal imperialism, why is it illegitimate to question the official account of 9/11? More importantly, is it really that conspiratorial to question the official account when it tells us that a bunch of bearded brown men roaming the desert in Jalabiyas learned to pilot planes and managed to plot such a devious attack against a leviathan and an unprecedented hegemon that, above all, vaunts its military and intelligence supremacy?
 
You can beg all you want. Doesn't make it any more true, no matter how much you want it to be. Not criticizing someone isn't the same as supporting someone or defending someone.

Of course not. Far be it that you'd bother with reading someone else's opinion that's different than yours. Typical. Oh so typical.

None of this is a refutation to anything I said. You have stated a number of times, that you want Trump to win. Again, how will your beloved US allies react to having its citizens banned from the US? You got caught not making much sense.
 
Why do you have to mis-characterize what Trump said.

You know he never said he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country.

Are there many refugees from Saudi Arabia?

Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.

Um, that's his campaign.
 
None of this is a refutation to anything I said. You have stated a number of times, that you want Trump to win.
If I have, quote my post that does so. Otherwise, this is without founding.
Again, how will your beloved US allies react to having its citizens banned from the US? You got caught not making much sense.

Meh. That's a hypothetical as it's not happened, and some say, with reason, that it won't happen.

I have no strong feeling WRT Saudia Arabia, and claiming that they are my 'beloved US allies' isn't accurate. Quote the post where I have stated anything beyond their being US allies with common interests.

Really, your fingers must be hurting with as many words as you've put in my mouth.
 
So how would you describe or categorize the US / Saudi relationship then?
Relationship does seem to be cordial.
The Saudi's gave us all the free fuel for our military in Gulf 1.
The Saudi's were more than helpful and opened all the their new bases for our use.
The Saudi's were tolerant of the military female flight line officers during the conflict.
Right now, they aren't cutting back on on their oil production, glutting the world markets and keeping the price low (which is nice for us, but I think is more to be against Iran really).

I guess it'd be sufficient to say that more often than not the Saudi's and the US have similar interests, which is what it's all about on the international stage.

Do you honestly believe glutting the oil market is a good thing? Do you not realize it has decimated our domestic oil industry?
 
If I have, quote my post that does so. Otherwise, this is without founding.

That last sentence, “Unfortunately, he’s choosing the path of burning down the house,” it what I immediately thought as well. The greater the agitation between Bernie and Hillary the less the chances that either of them will win the White House, which is just fine by me.

Yawn. Tell us all how you don't want Trump to win. :)

Meh. That's a hypothetical as it's not happened, and some say, with reason, that it won't happen.

Lmao, I've seen ducking and I've seen dodging, but pretending he doesn't want to get this done? Again, how will our beloved allies feel when their citizens are banned by Trump from entering the country? :)

I have no strong feeling WRT Saudia Arabia, and claiming that they are my 'beloved US allies' isn't accurate. Quote the post where I have stated anything beyond their being US allies with common interests.

You came into this thread to whine and moan like you habitually do about Obama, yet you are fine with the guy who wants to ban Saudis from entering the country winning. Your hackish opinions are more than evident.
 
Millions of people watched the planes fly into those buildings on their TV.

Lets see the Saudis change that.

:lol:
 
Yawn. Tell us all how you don't want Trump to win. :)

It's not so much as wanting Trump to win as it is not wanting Hillary to win. Once again, presidential election with a choice of less worse. <*sigh*>

Lmao, I've seen ducking and I've seen dodging, but pretending he doesn't want to get this done? Again, how will our beloved allies feel when their citizens are banned by Trump from entering the country? :)

Many different things here, Trump's wanting to institute this ban, his ability to institute the ban, and whether the ban will be instituted or not.

You came into this thread to whine and moan like you habitually do about Obama, yet you are fine with the guy who wants to ban Saudis from entering the country winning. Your hackish opinions are more than evident.

I see. Anything less than a positive opinion about Obama is called hackish.
 
Do you honestly believe glutting the oil market is a good thing? Do you not realize it has decimated our domestic oil industry?

Temporarily, yes. As long as the oil is in our ground here it remains available for future extraction and use. Glutting the oil market is driving the price down, and I'm pretty sure the Saudis are wanting to put the hurt on Iran.
 
A sign that Obama and the congress have pissed off yet another long standing US ally?

Wow, some "ally".
And kudos to Obama for suddenly being able to make ALL of Congress do his bidding.
Yeah that sounds very objective.
 
The US and the Saudi's do share a lot of the same interests.

Now you can call that being allies, or you can call it not being allies. But if you do call that not being allies, what would you call the relatively friendly relations between US and the Saudi's?

ONE interest....OIL.
 
The Wahabi's are the Saudi's right wing religious extremist nut jobs, who don't represent the government, the Royal family, nor the common man on the street.

It would be no more appropriate to blame the US Federal Government for the Westboro Baptist Church.

Identify this so called "left wing" because if there IS a "right wing" that would suggest an opposition.
Identify said opposition and please give us something that indicates their strengths and successes, particularly in a kingdom where even the word "liberal" suggests punishment is in order.

I await your illustration of Saudi democracy. :lamo
 
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: I'd also like to add that due to the agreement that Kissinger made with the Saudis many years ago, we have had "favored nation" status for our dollar. Everyone else that bought Saudi oil had to first convert their currency into dollars to pay for it, which greatly benefitted our country's standard of living. This will be threatened if the IMF decides to go with the "basket of currencies" approach that is being requested by China and other countries around the globe because of our horrendous $19 trillion dollar debt! We will doubtless be included in that basket, but we will no longer be the kingpin on the world stage! :thumbdown:

That "kingpin" status is only benefiting OUR kingpins.
 
I think that I should add here, that the Saudis are very good with that old Scottish Highland adage: "let's you and him fight".

We ARE their mercenaries, little more than armed janitors sent to clean up their messes.
 
Do you honestly believe glutting the oil market is a good thing? Do you not realize it has decimated our domestic oil industry?

And our alternative energy and electric car industry as well.
 
Temporarily, yes. As long as the oil is in our ground here it remains available for future extraction and use. Glutting the oil market is driving the price down, and I'm pretty sure the Saudis are wanting to put the hurt on Iran.

Iran's market is a fraction of the Saudi market, a very tiny fraction.
 
It's not so much as wanting Trump to win as it is not wanting Hillary to win. Once again, presidential election with a choice of less worse. <*sigh*>

Many different things here, Trump's wanting to institute this ban, his ability to institute the ban, and whether the ban will be instituted or not.

I see. Anything less than a positive opinion about Obama is called hackish.

Dude, you realize you came here to moan about Obama in a thread that had nothing to do with him. All the while ignoring that our 'ally' was the one whose citizens funded 9/11 in the first place, and that they would be banned by the very guy who you prefer as the next POTUS. Again, your hackishness is more than obvious to anybody with a pair of eyes.
 
Wow, some "ally".
And kudos to Obama for suddenly being able to make ALL of Congress do his bidding.
Yeah that sounds very objective.
Wait. Wut?

In the most recent events, congress passed a law that would allow the family members of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government for the actions of their religious extremists.

Yeah, so that'd make as much sense as congress passing a law to allow victims of Westboro Baptist Church harassment to sue the US federal government. In other words, it makes no sense at all. The Saudi government is not any more responsible for the acts of their religious extremists than the US federal government is responsible for the religious extremists of the Westboro Baptist Church.
ONE interest....OIL.
True.
Identify this so called "left wing" because if there IS a "right wing" that would suggest an opposition.
Identify said opposition and please give us something that indicates their strengths and successes, particularly in a kingdom where even the word "liberal" suggests punishment is in order.

I await your illustration of Saudi democracy. :lamo

Saudi is no democracy. Even so, the hard core religious extremists practicing the Wahabism are opposed to any more modern, less restrictive, less religious social policies.

The Saudi royal family has had a history of slow and steady pace of implementing more modern, less restrictive, less religious social policies as they deem their society and culture can adopt them. So, yes, there is opposition there.
 
Temporarily, yes. As long as the oil is in our ground here it remains available for future extraction and use. Glutting the oil market is driving the price down, and I'm pretty sure the Saudis are wanting to put the hurt on Iran.

Temporarily? Many small oil industry businesses have been put out of business permanently. What makes you believe the Saudis aren't wanting to put the hurt on us? Because, they most certainly have.
 
Dude, you realize you came here to moan about Obama in a thread that had nothing to do with him.
Other than his pissing off a long list of allies, of which include the Saudi's, and if not allies, at least nations with shared common interests.
All the while ignoring that our 'ally' was the one whose citizens funded 9/11 in the first place
No, I don't believe the Saudi government nor the Saudi (as a whole) family funded the 9/11 attacks. That was OBL and Al Qaeda.
and that they would be banned by the very guy who you prefer as the next POTUS. Again, your hackishness is more than obvious to anybody with a pair of eyes.
I think it pretty clear that I'm not thrilled with Trump, but am even less so with Hillary. That's not preferring Trump. That's more like being forced into voting for Trump.

You bandy about hackish awfully freely on a position which you assigned to me. That's pretty weak sauce if you ask me.
 
Temporarily? Many small oil industry businesses have been put out of business permanently. What makes you believe the Saudis aren't wanting to put the hurt on us? Because, they most certainly have.

You don't think that those very same businesses would restart should the economics of the world oil markets be more favorable to them?

I think they would.

Life can be pretty rough when dealing in commodities. That being said, life can be pretty good too when the commodity prices and / or demand is high. In the end, you've got to figure that it all balances out.
 
Wait. Wut?

In the most recent events, congress passed a law that would allow the family members of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government for the actions of their religious extremists.

Yeah, so that'd make as much sense as congress passing a law to allow victims of Westboro Baptist Church harassment to sue the US federal government. In other words, it makes no sense at all. The Saudi government is not any more responsible for the acts of their religious extremists than the US federal government is responsible for the religious extremists of the Westboro Baptist Church.

You don't seem to GET the FACT that Wahhabism is the ONLY sect of Islam officially allowed in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabs control schools, mosques, broadcast media, and ALL ASPECTS of public conduct in the Kingdom.
There IS NOT "Westboro" comparison because Westboro RUNS the place, ALL OF IT.
This is a FACT, a 100 percent FACT. If other Muslims live, visit or work there, it is ONLY because the Kingdom chooses to ignore their presence.
Shi'ia Muslims are considered non-Muslims, ALL OTHER Muslims are considered NON-MUSLIMS.
They are only TOLERATED.

The modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed in 1932 by the House of Saud, who are followers of a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism or "the Wahhabite mission". Followers of the Wahhabite mission—who dominate religious institutions, courts and education of the kingdom—believe Muslims should return to the interpretation of Islam found in the classical texts, the Quran and the Sunnah. They also believe that Muslims who seek intercession from holy men, such as the imams revered by Shia, are not true Muslims.

Again, THIS IS FACT

Saudi is no democracy. Even so, the hard core religious extremists practicing the Wahabism are opposed to any more modern, less restrictive, less religious social policies.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself and don't even know it. You do not know the first thing about Saudi Arabia's Royal Family and their relationship with the Wahhab, nor do you know the first inkling about the House of Saud's troubles with them.

The Saudi royal family has had a history of slow and steady pace of implementing more modern, less restrictive, less religious social policies as they deem their society and culture can adopt them. So, yes, there is opposition there.

NO, there is NO opposition EXCEPT that by younger members of the House of Saud, who are engaged in a fatal game of cat and mouse with the Wahhabi. And furthermore, were it not FOR their "shaved ape mercenaries" the Americans, and our continual care and feeding of their military, the Wahhabists would have mounted the heads of the House of Saud on spikes outside Jiddah and Mecca a long time ago.

We ARE the boy with the finger in the dike and we've had that finger there so long we don't even realize that we have lost the use of one arm.
Sorry but you need to acquaint yourself with the REALITY of Islam in the Kingdom and I would be more than happy to connect you with any number of Saudis who would be happy to explain it to you.
Just ask :D
 
Other than his pissing off a long list of allies, of which include the Saudi's, and if not allies, at least nations with shared common interests.

The Saudis have been perpetuating stories of the "Great Satan" (The US) for literally a century. This is nothing new. Again, how will your allies feel when their citizens are banned by the guy who you'd prefer winning? You've avoided that question like the plague.

No, I don't believe the Saudi government nor the Saudi (as a whole) family funded the 9/11 attacks. That was OBL and Al Qaeda.

Obama Bin Laden was a Saudi citizen. So were all 19 hijackers. Keep up.

I think it pretty clear that I'm not thrilled with Trump, but am even less so with Hillary. That's not preferring Trump.

Dude, only 3 people currently running. You don't want Clinton or Sanders to win, you by default prefer Trump. Do you have a hard time with this?
 
Back
Top Bottom