quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

if you go back and look more carefully comrade misnamed in uk, my post neither mentioned politics nor was built on any American political premise.

it was a information consistent with what phydeaux was posting, and more in particular, a response to Thompson's inane question to him about yale.

you consider that "political grandstanding?"

does it matter who on here posts that information? the information is out there as a representative of reality no matter who posts it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

ah---given that he believes we went into the Korean war because of tungsten, and that the US was the aggressor in WWII, maybe that makes a little more sense...if warped thinking is your thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I fail to see the timely relevance here. The US backed and even installed ruthless dictators during the cold war (and historically/commercially throughout history) as long as they took our money and stayed out of bed with the soviets and to keep resources [and profits] private.

Now we back who we choose (even Kuwaiti and Saudi elitist whores) in order to ensure the copious flow of oil. We took down Saddam's desire for a Euro based oil exchange, a Qaddafi desire for a gold based oil exchange. We support (even helped create) a western banking cartel, even pass tax incentives to ensure wall street has plenty of our money (billion$/week) to gamble with and also provide taxpayer insurance against their greed and venality.

IT'S ALL about the fucking MONEY !! And always will be. Just keep it partisan and real hey ? [sic]

Next question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Its all about power. Money derives therefrom.


Money can't buy power?????

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You don't even have the balls to be honest, or to live up to your name.

1. I never said individual saudi's, or saudi charitable institutes did not fund terrorism against the US.
2. I didn't say the House of Saud didn't fund terrorism.
3. I said - the documentation has never existed that tied the Saudi's to terrorism against the US.
4. I also never said bush wasn't an idiot; never said he shouldn't have done more against terrorism.

What I said was that Clinton dropping his pants - and the ensueing uproar caused him to drop the ball and not act against an emerging threat.

What record does clintons have - overthrowing libya (now a bastion for ISIS), doing nothing to bring the outstanding murderers of ambassador stevens to justice, Helping the muslim brotherhood bring egypt to the brink of civil war (MB = terrorist organization), and not capturing Osama Bin laudin when sudan offered him to Clinton for 25 mil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You don't even have the balls to be honest, or to live up to your name.

1. I never said individual saudi's, or saudi charitable institutes did not fund terrorism against the US.
2. I didn't say the House of Saud didn't fund terrorism.
3. I said - the documentation has never existed that tied the Saudi's to terrorism against the US.
4. I also never said bush wasn't an idiot; never said he shouldn't have done more against terrorism.

What I said was that Clinton dropping his pants - and the ensueing uproar caused him to drop the ball and not act against an emerging threat.

What record does clintons have - overthrowing libya (now a bastion for ISIS), doing nothing to bring the outstanding murderers of ambassador stevens to justice, Helping the muslim brotherhood bring egypt to the brink of civil war (MB = terrorist organization), and not capturing Osama Bin laudin when sudan offered him to Clinton for 25 mil.

Like most of your bullshit posts, you are moving the goalposts. You said saudi Arabia doesnt fund terrorism, now you are denying it,

quote:


However, Saudi terrorism is terrorism advanced by the state of Saudi Arabia. Which again by and large - has not happened against the US. In fact the Saud's have provided quite a fair amount of intelligence to the US.

for example: http://www.elithecomputerguy.com/2013/11/18/saudi-arabias-general-intelligence-agency-overview/
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-us-expands-intelligence-sharing-with-saudis-in-yemen-operation-2015-4

Now it is certainly true that Saudi Arabia has a great number of wealthy individual Sunni's. And these individuals have pursued agendas both counter to the ruling family, and to American interests.
But the fact that there is sunni terrorism does not make it equivalent to Saudi terrorism, any more than you being an idiotic, rude brit constitutes insulting behavior by Her Majesty's government.

Understand ?

Iran has supported terrorism against the US. The Sauds have not.