Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,225
Since its Iran that was attacked Trump will probably be privately (or not so privately) cheering. Even if it was IS that was responsible. I'm not convinced he knows the difference.
Terrorist Attack - Breaking (not really breaking). Iran
- Thread starter awaybreaktoday
- Start date
It's what the report into the funding of terrorism commissioned by our government says to... probably. We don't know because the Tories are refusing to let the authors publish it.
Trump sent one of the most insensitive, crass "condolences" you can imagine. He sent his sympathies but then tacked on something about how states that sponsor terrorism should expect this. The Iranian foreign minister is so upset right now he called the message "repugnant". They're usually way more diplomatic. But the USA backs Saudi Arabia and has just agreed the sale of several hundred billion in arms to that country. It's got to be pretty sickening when terrorists kill a dozen people in your country and then the main backer of those you consider responsible (with some grounds) sends you a message saying you were asking for it.
I'm seriously thinking somebody should get a petition going to get that report about the funding of terrorism published asap. There's definitely something nasty brewing with the way Saudi and several other Arab states have suddenly cut ties with Qatar. Not that I'm any kind of fan of Qatar but historically it is the one that has tried to find middle ground between Iran and the Sunni Arab states.
Of all the words I'd use to describe 9/11, I don't think "ineffective" would be on there. Even if I were okay with using the term to describe such a tragic event and massive loss of life, it can hardly be said not to achieved anything from the Saudi point of view. It provided a causus belli for the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time the USA invaded the latter country, more than 50% of US citizens believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks.
it achieved literally no real chance in the just, it killed an insignificant number of people on a usa scale and just how exactly did the rise of ISIS benefit SA (benefited europe and Britain quite a bit thought)
although wiking this is interesting
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ing-victims-to-sue-saudi-arabia-a7034781.html
i didnt know obama protected them so much
Well considering Arek was trying to claim the Saudi government were responsible for 9/11 (which was an attack on an ally of the Saudi government by an enemy of the Saudi government) I would agree it was highly ineffective if true XD
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/28/senate-obama-veto-september-11-bill-saudi-arabia
wow actually obama did try to veto it and it was overturned by congress
that is possibly the moist ****ish answer ive read, obama basically said he doesn't care about truth, or justice just if he gets sued for killing innocents abroad
wow actually obama did try to veto it and it was overturned by congress
that is possibly the moist ****ish answer ive read, obama basically said he doesn't care about truth, or justice just if he gets sued for killing innocents abroad
It seems everyone has forgotten why the saudis secretly hate us, especially the usa. Because we forced them to accept $$$ for their oil instead of gold, which they prefered. If i remember correctly Syria and Libya wanted to do the same 
I know venezuela switched from dollar to euro and they were sanctioned to hell and back until they changed back to petrodollar
I know venezuela switched from dollar to euro and they were sanctioned to hell and back until they changed back to petrodollar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40187414
The two parts that interested me:
So, what we have here is the demand to close a news agency or at the least, put controls on it. Al-Jazeera has a history of reporting on things that Saudi Arabia and their other neighbours don't like to be reported on. Pretty concerning.
The two parts that interested me:
So, what we have here is the demand to close a news agency or at the least, put controls on it. Al-Jazeera has a history of reporting on things that Saudi Arabia and their other neighbours don't like to be reported on. Pretty concerning.
It seems everyone has forgotten why the saudis secretly hate us, especially the usa. Because we forced them to accept $$$ for their oil instead of gold, which they prefered. If i remember correctly Syria and Libya wanted to do the same
I know venezuela switched from dollar to euro and they were sanctioned to hell and back until they changed back to petrodollar
Not aware of Syria doing so (I could just not be aware of it). But Libya yes. They were advancing plans with the African Union to introduce their own version of the Euro, for Africa. Not sure what it would actually be named, it seems to just have been planned to be called a "Dinar". Libya is (well, was) rich in oil and gold and was proposing using its gold reserves to back the currency. Unlike the dollar and the Euro which are backed by being too big to fail. (Semi-humorous. The dollar is also backed by the US military as we've seen). Libya would obviously have then sold oil not in dollars - the international reserve currency - but in the new gold-backed dinar. This is much like how Saddam intended to switch to the Euro to sell oil rather than the US dollar. The chief difference being that Saddam needed to piggy back on someone else's international currency whereas Libya had massive gold reserves and planned to start its own.
For the Conspiracy Theorists, I'll say it's probably not the case that the Iraq war was because of this. But I will say it was a relevant factor. Having the US dollar be the world's de facto reserve currency gives the USA tremendous economic power because they control that currency. As one example, it allows the USA to maintain its incredible level of deficit spending by sending dollars abroad in staggering quantities. Also, by being the usual currency for oil, the dollar becomes sort of backed by oil. I.e. you can exchange it for oil in the same way that in olden days you could exchange your pounds for silver (sterling). Being backed by oil buoys up the currency. I'm only an amateur economist - which is a bit like being an amateur heart surgeon. So I can't really get into deep arguments on this. But I've read a fair bit on this subject and it certainly is something treated seriously. Both the Euro and the Dollar are fiat currencies - they have value because people think they are valuable (and because you can pay your taxes in them). The African Dinar would have been backed by gold. Which is a lot more solid than a number on Alan Greenspan's computer. And it also would be looked on favourably by many oil-producing regions of the world that saw it as finally a chance to escape from the Almighty Dollar. Any movement away from the dollar for international trade is A Very Big Deal. US National Debt is around $20trn. Its deficit (before anyone thinks they need to explain to me the difference) is projected to be $600bn for 2017. Like a credit card, so long as you keep meeting minimum payments, nobody knocks on your door. But that's not the same as not being in a risky situation if your circumstances change and the USA is riding the tiger. It cannot get off. Or allow anyone else to knock it off.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Saudis would prefer to be paid in gold than IOUs. Particularly IOUs from a nation that will invade and overthrow you if you try to cash them in.
EDIT: You obviously know, but for the interest of any that don't: The USA forced Saudi Arabia to an agreement back in the Seventies that they would only sell oil in US dollars and refuse any other currency.
Last edited:
Curious as to who the likes of Britain and US would be in open support of in such an outcome. Naturally they would support Saudi, but then they would have to be open in the support of the biggest sponsor of terror in the world, whilst at the same time say they are fighting a war against terror. If the situation kicks up a notch the fallout for the UK alone is going to be astronomical.
It would be an interesting test of media control, but it's been done before. I'll forego the WMD example because that's both old and only had to be maintained for a short period. I'll pick instead the Commons vote on whether or not to initiate air strikes in Syria. The vote took place under David Cameron and was argued that the rebels on the ground needed our support. A sizeable proportion of those rebels which we supported (from memory, around 40% of them numerically) belonged to a little known group named Al Quaeda. So it wont be the first time we've militarily supported people we simultaneously called terrorists. Although usually we have them as allies first and then decide they're terrorists around fifteen years later. (Taliban), not at the same time.
I suppose it's the one advantage of insurgency warfare. If you want to convince the people that we have always been at war with Oceania, you need a lot of Winston Smiths working diligently to pull that off. But one group of dirty militants with hard to remember names looks much like any other group of dirty militants with hard to remember names. And they swap around their names all the time anyway so the public never really can keep it straight from year to year.
Qatar have actually been our allies quite recently. They provided soldiers for the Libyan "uprising" and we provided air support. (Not conspiracy theory - known fact that Qatar soldiers were on the ground in Libya). So if it does come to open warfare with us supporting Saudi Arabia and others, it's a pretty treacherous act. They also provide the USA with a major military base which they helped pay for, too.
It seems everyone has forgotten why the saudis secretly hate us, especially the usa. Because we forced them to accept $$$ for their oil instead of gold, which they prefered. If i remember correctly Syria and Libya wanted to do the same
I know venezuela switched from dollar to euro and they were sanctioned to hell and back until they changed back to petrodollar
iran...
Oh that's the reason they were sanctioned... nothing to do with anything else at all? Sure...
Speaking of hacking...
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.the...ers-qatar-crisis-fbi-inquiry-saudi-arabia-uae
And a critique of the idea, although it largely rests on the idea that the Russian government wouldn't want to destabilize Qatar - something the guardian report says isn't likely to happen.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.blo...ussian-hacking-in-qatar-and-putin-s-ambitions
Lots more to all of this than initially meets the eye.
How many do they own?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I mean, can anyone really call Saudi the biggest sponsor of terror in the world? What are the biggest reasons for instability in the region, Iran, Iraq, Saudi and Israel/Palestine, which country spent literally trillions upon trillions at this point across the last 60-70 years and was key in all the problems of Iran, Iraq and Israel/Palestine and now currently dumps billions a year into the Saudi families pockets?
How many millions of people across the middle east live in constant terror and how many of them have done for a ridiculously long time. America was funding/in bed with Iran till they blew that up, then they were in bed with Iraq till that blew up, and in bed with Libya till that blew up, helping train militants in Afghanistan till that blew up, were key to the establishment of Israel and still provides them a ludicrous amount of money and weapons yearly which they full well know are used to terrorise people on a daily basis.
There is no bigger state sponsorship of terror than the USA. Saudi's are freaking amateurs compared to them. No one has pumped more weapons or cash into the region which has caused the deaths of untold numbers of civilians.