Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've never understood why the US response to 9/11 didn't go after Saudi Arabia, given where most of the perpetrators were from.

I guess that would have been more economically and diplomatically inconvenient than kicking the crap out of Afghanistan.

 Da Boss wrote:
I've never understood why the US response to 9/11 didn't go after Saudi Arabia, given where most of the perpetrators were from.

I guess that would have been more economically and diplomatically inconvenient than kicking the crap out of Afghanistan.

Seems like a relatively simple answer if you look at it.

Talibs (gov't of Afghanistan) actively protected the guys who planned and financed the operation and had hosted them as they planned the attack.

The Saudis did not.

Where the perps were born frankly did not and should not have been a deciding factor as to where the retaliation should have taken place. Not sure why you would argue otherwise unless you're just trying to be snarky.

So islamic extremists do not get any funding or help from the Saudis? That's news to me!

 Da Boss wrote:
I've never understood why the US response to 9/11 didn't go after Saudi Arabia, given where most of the perpetrators were from.

I guess that would have been more economically and diplomatically inconvenient than kicking the crap out of Afghanistan.

Because Al-Qaeda was utilizing Afghanistan as its training base for terrorist operations against the US. They are a multinational terrorist group that doesn't have a home country. The fact that many of them came from Saudi is about as relevant as the fact that most NHL players are Canadian and yet most of the teams are in the US

 Da Boss wrote:
So islamic extremists do not get any funding or help from the Saudis? That's news to me!

I'll assume you are choosing to ignore what I actually wrote in favor of building a straw man.

We can all agree the Talibs, the acting gov't of Afghanistan did indeed harbor/protect the Al Queda leadership, right?

That should not be disputable. The Talibs made it clear that was indeed their policy.

I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

*Shakes head*

Well, at least the war sorted out islamic fundamentalism.

 Da Boss wrote:
I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

*Shakes head*

Well, at least the war sorted out islamic fundamentalism.

Again, you asked why we invaded Afghanistan rather than Saudi Arabia.

Is there a portion of the provided answer you either do not understand or for some reason disagree with?

Yes, because I believe the Saudis did more to cause the attacks than the Taliban did by hiding the leaders in the aftermath.

My view on it is, the Taliban were dumb enough to be obvious.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yes, because I believe the Saudis did more to cause the attacks than the Taliban did by hiding the leaders in the aftermath.

My view on it is, the Taliban were dumb enough to be obvious.

How do you suppose invading Saudi Arabia would have brought the Al Queda leadership to justice? (that was the intent of going into Afghanistan)

Can you please define 'the Saudis'? Because the actual gov't of Saudi fights AQ and their ilk domestically and has been for a while. Have they had some policies (especially in regards to banking) that have enabled AQ and their ilk to transfer funds? Yep. And many of those funds were generated from organizations set up as charities and gathered funds internationally (the UK was a MAJOR source, second to funds from the country (not gov't) of Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting we should also have gone to war against the UK because charities either based there or collecting funds there went directly to AQ prior to 9-11?

At this point I'll assume you have an ax to grind against the US and there is no way to actually reason with you.

It's nice that you are making that assumption of me- I've no particular axe to grind against the US, I just think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were colossal mistakes.

Do I have an axe to grind against Saudi Arabia? Yes, yes I do. And I think all of us should, as it is a barbaric country.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's nice that you are making that assumption of me- I've no particular axe to grind against the US, I just think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were colossal mistakes.

Do I have an axe to grind against Saudi Arabia? Yes, yes I do. And I think all of us should, as it is a barbaric country.

Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

 Da Boss wrote:
I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

The difference is that Saudi support was from private individuals, acting on account of their own personal beliefs. Which doesn't make it okay, but it'd be a just plain weird response to drive tanks over the border and start bombing government facilities on account of what private individuals did.

Citizens in the US city of Boston gave a lot of money to support the IRA, and while that wasn't okay on any level, it would have been completely bizarre for the UK to respond by attacking the US government.

This isn't to say the Saudis can't or shouldn't do more. Their reaction has been, well, complex and weird, but kind of understandable given their own priorities. Basically the House of Saud needs to be seen less as the leaders of country, and more the owners of a money flow from oil, who care only for keeping that oil flowing. So on the one hand they see terrorism as a potential threat to their sweet, sweet oil revenue, but on the other hand they're happy if that terrorism focuses elsewhere, and all the while they rely on extremist Islamic teaching as an outlet for the social problems of their own country.

The trick then is to put enough pressure on the Saudis so that it causes them more harm than good. But right now as long as we buy their oil no matter what, I can't see how that's going to happen.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

Oh look, pure unashamed bigotry.

 sebster wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I see, so because Saudi Arabia lies about it's support for Jihadist and extremist movements, that's okay.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

Oh look, pure unashamed bigotry.

Or, "Ohh look, someone who isn't afraid to call it how they see it".

Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence. Name me a country that hasn't publicly declared their goal of destroying Israel, Name me a country that hasn't violated numerous human rights on a regular basis.

Kuwait is probably the best out of the lot and even they have issues.

I'd say, if it spreads to all of them, the whole concept of institutionalized raping of children is a good argument these countries have a barbaric culture.
That's just one thing. Isn't slavery a thing over there? Reading about how foreign workers are being treated as they prepare the World Cup venue is another good argument.
Then again, what is it we do that is considered barbaric or outrageous in the countries over there? Might be a good opportunity to hold the mirror up to ourselves.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Or, "Ohh look, someone who isn't afraid to call it how they see it".

Well, yes, obviously you're calling it as you see it. The point is that what you're seeing is bigoted nonsense.

Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

You've moved your goal posts from barabarism to face covering in a single post. Boring, disingenuous nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I'd say, if it spreads to all of them, the whole concept of institutionalized raping of children is a good argument these countries have a barbaric culture.

And if we all start start eating our elderly, then you could say the same about us.

You're hiding a nasty piece of bigotry behind an 'if'.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Or, "Ohh look, someone who isn't afraid to call it how they see it".

Well, yes, obviously you're calling it as you see it. The point is that what you're seeing is bigoted nonsense.

Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

You've moved your goal posts from barabarism to face covering in a single post. Boring, disingenuous nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I'd say, if it spreads to all of them, the whole concept of institutionalized raping of children is a good argument these countries have a barbaric culture.

And if we all start start eating our elderly, then you could say the same about us.

You're hiding a nasty piece of bigotry behind an 'if'.

Not at all. I think I should have been more clear. It seems from what I've read about it, this practice is spread throughout the Middle East as well as Afghanastan. I am not sure about that being true, though. I'll do some search later and get back to you on that. I think you'd agree then that's really bad, if not barbaric.

Of course, this isn't something that goes on in any western country that I know of:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/facing-crucifixion-saudi-man-still-dreaming-future-n431536

That is a hell of a civilized justice system, what with public beheadings and stoning so for different of fences, such as being suspected of being a witch or committing the crime of being raped. That last one takes blaming the victim to a whole new level.

Relapse wrote:
Not at all. I think I should have been more clear. It seems from what I've read about it, this practice is spread throughout the Middle East as well as Afghanastan.

There's been a hell of a lot of paedophilia in the Catholic church. But the term 'barbaric' was never used.

I am not sure about that being true, though. I'll do some search later and get back to you on that. I think you'd agree then that's really bad, if not barbaric.

Definitely. It happens once and it's fething appalling. That enclaves set up where it's acceptable is just the worst. But to assume its possible that it might just be common across a whole region of the world is... well, like saying if blood libel was widespread, then Jews would be the worst. But it's pretty obvious to everyone now that putting out that kind of accusation as an 'if' is basically letting bigotry make your assumptions for you.

Of course, this isn't something that goes on in any western country that I know of:

Not in Western countries, but in plenty of non-Arabic, non-Muslim countries.

Let's all remember to keep the arguments to the facts not individuals members

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

Well, you already moved the goalposts once, but why not - Kuwait allows women to vote and has women elected to their government, and are not required to wear a burqa or niqab.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

Well, you already moved the goalposts once, but why not - Kuwait allows women to vote and has women elected to their government, and are not required to wear a burqa or niqab.

Women can vote and walk around without head coverings in Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Cyprus.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Please show me 1 middle eastern country that allows woman to vote and to walk around without coverings without facing some kind of consequence.

Well, you already moved the goalposts once, but why not - Kuwait allows women to vote and has women elected to their government, and are not required to wear a burqa or niqab.

Well 1: I didnt move the goal posts I just further defined what I considered to be Barbarism.
and 2: Its funny you bring up Kuwait because in my post i even specifically mention Kuwait is probably the best of them ad they have problems.

Women are discriminated against, and Kuwait has no laws prohibiting domestic violence, sexual harassment, or marital rape.

From HRW's website.

3: I don't consider cyprus or Turkey to be part of the Middle East, Really I don't consider Egypt to be either, beyond the simple fact that they are more closely linked to Africa (land wise) then the Middle East.

In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex
with animals, but the animals must be female.
Having sexual relations with a male animal is
punishable by death.

I would say that is pretty barbaric wouldn't you?

But anyway lets just say that the entirety of the middle east is at least 100 years behind most of the western world. again with the exception of Israel and emphasis on "MOST of the western world"

So if you change the definition of "Middle East" and then change your criteria from "women can't vote and show their face" to "its legal to feth a goat", then you maybe somewhat have a point?

Also, just for lulz, more states in the US legalized bestiality than same-sex marriage. If "fetching animals isn't against the law" is the new measure for a country being barbaric then it doesn't look good for the grey states on this map:

 d-usa wrote:
So if you change the definition of "Middle East" and then change your criteria from "women can't vote and show their face" to "its legal to feth a goat", then you maybe somewhat have a point?

Also, just for lulz, more states in the US legalized bestiality than same-sex marriage. If "fetching animals isn't against the law" is the new measure for a country being barbaric then it doesn't look good for the grey states on this map:

Red Herring much?

What I posted was an ACTUAL law legalizing Bestiality, what you posted were states that DONT have laws against it.

No, what you posted was "name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and not wear coverings", then moved the goal post by clarifying that Middle East is based on your own private definition of Middle East, then moved the goal post again by saying that legally being allowed to have sex with an animal is barbaric and that it is legal to have sex with a male animal on Lebanon (which is false by the way), then now moved the goal post again by saying "something being legal isn't the same as something not being illegal".

But we are sitting here with baited breath waiting on the newest goalpost to fall.

 d-usa wrote:
No, what you posted was "name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and not wear coverings", then moved the goal post by clarifying that Middle East is based on your own private definition of Middle East, then moved the goal post again by saying that legally being allowed to have sex with an animal is barbaric and that it is legal to have sex with a male animal on Lebanon (which is false by the way), then now moved the goal post again by saying "something being legal isn't the same as something not being illegal".

But we are sitting here with baited breath waiting on the newest goalpost to fall.

So, to clarify, you took something out of context, then you took something out of context, then you took something out of context, then you made a red herring, and then you made a false statement. Noted

"Name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and walk around uncovered" *names 6* "you are taking it out of context"

"I don't consider them the Middle East" "so are we using your own definition of Middle East then?" "You are taking my statement out of context"

"Legal animal fething is barbaric and its legal in Lebanon" "it's not legal in Lebanon, but its legal in many US states" "red hering!"

Pro tip: Using your own words, definitions, and criteria is not taking you out of context. It's proving you wrong. Using legal bestiality as a sudden new criteria for being barbaric could be a red herring, especially since it's not true that it's legal in Lebanon, but pointing out that it is legal in our non-barbaric country isn't a red herring, it's proving you wrong.

Pro-tip 2: if you constantly have to move your arguments and post lies to back them up when you are forced to move the goal posts, you probably didn't have a very good argument to begin with.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
and 2: Its funny you bring up Kuwait because in my post i even specifically mention Kuwait is probably the best of them ad they have problems.

So you did; my bad. I somehow didn't see it.

 d-usa wrote:
"Name one country in the Middle East where women can vote and walk around uncovered" *names 6* "you are taking it out of context"

"I don't consider them the Middle East" "so are we using your own definition of Middle East then?" "You are taking my statement out of context"

"Legal animal fething is barbaric and its legal in Lebanon" "it's not legal in Lebanon, but its legal in many US states" "red hering!"

Pro tip: Using your own words, definitions, and criteria is not taking you out of context. It's proving you wrong. Using legal bestiality as a sudden new criteria for being barbaric could be a red herring, especially since it's not true that it's legal in Lebanon, but pointing out that it is legal in our non-barbaric country isn't a red herring, it's proving you wrong.

Pro-tip 2: if you constantly have to move your arguments and post lies to back them up when you are forced to move the goal posts, you probably didn't have a very good argument to begin with.

1: I should have been more clear on what I consider to be the Middle East, I apologize for not specifying further and instead using a general term which is about 90% accurate for the point I was making.
2: Bestiality is in fact legal in Lebanon, and the red herring is because there is no law against it in certain US states, the difference is very obvious and if you don't believe so then I recommend you never become a lawyer.
3: Pro tips: debating on an offtopic forum while going off topic is...redundant.

Back on topic. I am a bit surprised this only came to light 14 years after we started this whole charade.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. Maybe lay off the manifest destiny a little, it's hampering your objectivity.

Mostly it was the Russians that started EVERYTHING by selling massive amounts of weaponry to ME dictators back in the day.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Every country in the middle east, with the exception of Israel are "Barbaric". Mostly because they have some form of Sharia law incorporated into their governance.

Truth. Look at Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of our big ol' "allies."

Perhaps the time has come to dial back the conversation to Afghanastan, which I think we can all safely agree, is as barbaric and depraved a country as there is in today's world.