Why is France the new hawk in Europe?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


One of the articles I linked to above, from an Israeli source, has little doubt of the veracity of the allegations.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm

*

Saudi Arabia's past involvement in international terrorism is indisputable. While the Bush administration decided to redact 28 sensitive pages of the Joint Intelligence Report of the U.S. Congress, nonetheless, Saudi involvement in terrorist financing can be documented through materials captured by Israel in Palestinian headquarters in 2002-3. In light of this evidence, Saudi denials about terrorist funding don't hold water.
*

Israel retrieved a document of the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) which detailed the allocation of $280,000 to 14 Hamas charities. IIRO and other suspected global Saudi charities are not NGOs, since their boards of directors are headed by Saudi cabinet members. Prince Salman, a full brother of King Fahd, controls IIRO distributions "with an iron hand," according to former CIA operative Robert Baer. Mahmoud Abbas, in fact, complained, in a handwritten December 2000 letter to Salman, about Saudi funding of Hamas. Defense Minister Prince Sultan has been cited as a major IIRO contributor.
*

It was hoped, after the May 12 triple bombing attack in Riyadh, that Saudi Arabia might halt its support for terrorism. Internally, the Saudi security forces moved against al-Qaeda cells all over the kingdom. But externally, the Saudis were still engaged in terrorist financing, underwriting 60-70 percent of the Hamas budget, in violation of their "roadmap" commitments to President Bush.
*

Additionally, the Saudis back the civilian infrastructure of Hamas with extremist textbooks glorifying jihad and martyrdom that are used by schools and Islamic societies throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ideological infiltration of Palestinian society by the Saudis in this way is reminiscent of their involvement in the madrassa system of Pakistan during the 1980s, that gave birth to the Taliban and other pro bin-Laden groups.

In a more recent analysis, the creed leaves little scope for coexistance with the West, with violence being intrinsic.

http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0705/0705_2.htm

The terms Islamofascism and theofascism have been frequently misused by Westerners to refer to virtually all forms of radical Islamism, but they are fitting appellations for Wahhabism today.[2] The sect's rejection of individual liberties, disparagement and reduction of women's rights and status,[3] disregard for the intrinsic value of human life, and encouragement of violence against unbelievers, are unparalleled among Islamic fundamentalist movements

Dismissing Wahhabism as merely "a sect" seems to whitewash the distinctly influential role in contemporary terror of the movement. To say that funding of it is "not per se supporting terrorism" would appear to be turning a blind eye to the root cause of the problem.

Yes, KSA has given money to Hamas in the past. Id be delighted if everyone treated Hamas as a terrorist group as untouchable as Al Qaeeda. If so that would implicate KSA, but it would implicate Iran and Syria even more so. It would also have implications for the the diplomatic ties to Hamas of many EU states.

But thats not the international reality.

So its silly to expect the US to go to war with KSA over its past support for Hamas. Right now we are at least pressuring them to support Fatah, and NOT to pressure Fatah back into negotiations with Hamas. That seems to be working for now.

If you care so much about Hamas, you will certainly join in support for addressing Iran, which is a much stronger, much more aggressive, supporter of Hamas than KSA. KSA at least seems to have encouraged Hamas to moderate. Iran has encouraged Hamas to be as violent as possible, AFAIK. On the streets of Gaza, Fatah supporters have taken to calling Hamasnisks "Shiites" due to their well know Iranian support.


As for statements in support of violence against non-believers, many statements in muslim religion have been taken out of context.

The fact is KSA has been a Wahabi state since its founding, and it has nonetheless been at peace with the US and the UK since WW2.

It did make a huge effort to spread Wahabism after 1979. At first largely a defensive effort, in response to attempts to spread Khomeinism around the muslim (not just the Shia) world.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
C. If they dont get on board, and the UNSC fails, we proceed to real sanctions with our democratic partners. EU sanctions are a major issue now.

And where is the an appetite for EU wide sanctions when the Germans won't agree to it?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Lancer
The terrorists give the folks in the WTC a week?

Bush DL

[Lancer]

Next I want to discuss 'new clear' options.

[Arrian]

Best way to be safe is to give up their uranium enrichment program.

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

No, the real "best way to be safe" is to acquire nuclear weapons.

This is obvious. Once you have nukes, you're immune.

So there must be both carrot and stick if we are to have any hope of convincing them to give up their program.

If I were them, I wouldn't give it up for anything, though.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

No, the real "best way to be safe" is to acquire nuclear weapons.

To be safe from an Iraq style intervention, which we couldnt pull off in Iran anyway.

Not to be safe from sanctions, subversion, and non-violent regime change.

The new buzz word is "soft revolution" Thats why theyve been arresting every Iranian-American with the words "political science" in their resumes when they pass through. Their paranoid about it. Perhaps correctly. Nukes wont prevent that.

And they wont prevent a conventional attack that comes BEFORE the nukes are ready. Again, best way to be safe is to drop the enrichment program.

So BZZT to you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
No, the real "best way to be safe" is to acquire nuclear weapons.

This is obvious. Once you have nukes, you're immune.

yeah, ask Serb about that. The South Africans thought that as well.

[Lancer]

If we invaded Iran we could declare victory within 3 weeks tops, and the war would last no more than 15 years at the outside.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


To be safe from an Iraq style intervention, which we couldnt pull off in Iran anyway.

Not to be safe from sanctions, subversion, and non-violent regime change.

The new buzz word is "soft revolution" Thats why theyve been arresting every Iranian-American with the words "political science" in their resumes when they pass through. Their paranoid about it. Perhaps correctly. Nukes wont prevent that.

And they wont prevent a conventional attack that comes BEFORE the nukes are ready. Again, best way to be safe is to drop the enrichment program.

So BZZT to you.

Fair enough, nukes don't make one immune to "soft power." But then, nothing does, or at least nothing the Iranian leadership is likely to accept.

Given that, if I'm them, I want nukes pronto. THEN I start playing nice and work at chipping away at whatever sanctions may or may not have been levied against me.

You cite Serb... I'm not sure why. You cite S.A. Perhaps I should cite India? Or Israel?

-Arrian

[Lancer]

Soviet Union anyone?

[Arrian]

Ah, yes, more about soft power.

*smacks forehead*

Duh.

Of course, had the USSR not acquired nukes, its position would've been even weaker.

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

Not only do we not need the UN to impose real sanctions, but the only way we will get real sanctions is doing it outside the UN. I expect a post from Lori soon after, but the UN is useless. I don't understan Ozzy's trust in it. Since when has the Security Council ever had any positive effect? Sadam is probably still laughing at the UN from his grave, and the mere mention of Yugoslavia and African genocide should make anyone remotely in favor of the UN hide their heads in shame . My position on the UN used to be it was at least good for it's humanitarian efforts ... enter the food for oil program. How I thought an institution run mostly by third world, thug run countries could provide humanitarian support is beyond me.

[Arrian]

Sanctions rarely work.

LotM has cited South Africa in the past wrt sanctions programs that have succeeded. His point, IIRC, was that the government of SA wanted to be part of the global community (including, perhaps most importantly, the commonwealth), and were therefore really stung by being treated as a pariah.

I don't see the same phenomenon working wrt Iran.

-Arrian

[Lancer]

As I've said before, if Iran wants nukes we should send them some.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Fair enough, nukes don't make one immune to "soft power." But then, nothing does, or at least nothing the Iranian leadership is likely to accept.

Given that, if I'm them, I want nukes pronto. THEN I start playing nice and work at chipping away at whatever sanctions may or may not have been levied against me.

You cite Serb... I'm not sure why. You cite S.A. Perhaps I should cite India? Or Israel?

-Arrian

India and Israel are democracies, and are thus immune to soft revolutions. They are both subject to armed terror, but as the majority populations in both states are strongly loyal to their democratic states, that present little real existential threat.

Israel, a nation of a few million, surrounded by enemies, and past enemies whos friendship is limited and not assured, is quite vulnerable to being conquered, occupied, and dissolved.

India is not. I daresay India doesnt need its nukes to assure its survival. When precisely did I say it did?

South Africa is quite relevant. It shows that having a nuclear deterrent, while useful against a conventional threat, is not useful against regime change.