Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Selling weapons to known Terrorism-sponsoring countries

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

As for the others, I think most people here understand very well the role of Saudi Arabia in state sponsored terrorism, so we can close this utterly suprising distraction from the main topic of this thread.

The notion that Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of anti-US terrorism is nowhere near an established fact. And you still haven't presented any evidence that the Saudi government is sponsoring anti-US terrorism.

You haven't even tried. All you've been doing is desperately trying to move the goal posts, in at least three different ways:

1. You posted links to secret State Dep. documents in which Hillary Clinton is arguing that Saudi Arabia is not doing enough to PREVENT funding going to terrorists. Not doing enough to prevent private citizens from funding terrorism (in Hillary Clinton's opinion) is not the same thing as sponsoring terrorism.

2. You switched to accusing Saudi Arabia of sponsoring "jihad". Jihad is not terrorism.

3. You switched to accusing Saudi Arabia of being Muslim fundamentalists. Muslim fundamentalism is also not terrorism.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think the term "indiscriminate killing" should be thrown out as being so vague as to be worthless. When a truly crazy persons goes on a rampage, we might describe it as "indiscriminate killing", but

The Bin Laden family are not terrorists, they're a prominent Arab family with business interests across the Middle East. Osama bin Laden has been disowned by his family, and officially stripped of his

How do you maintain the moral status of Western countries not playing an active role in supporting Islamic Fundamentalist activities today?   I mean, if you are selling weapons to a country like Sau

I think there are two main ideological trends that have laid the groundwork for Islamic terrorism and groups like ISIS:

  • the growth of a more primitive strain of Islam (where one would have expected growing modernization instead), and
  • post-colonial nationalism and quest for identity 

Most middle-eastern leaders used the establishment of Israel as an excuse to create a national enemy (vital for dictators). If violence against Israel was not promoted, it was condoned as understandable. The ideology was mostly nationalist, but also religious.

 

When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, it became acceptable in the middle-east to encourage a religious crusade to save an Islamic country. (The U.S. supported the fight even if it never supported the ideology.) The ideology shifted to being religious, and explicitly universal-ist (actually, supra-nationalist across Islamic countries, rather than nationalist).

 

The Saudi government played a role in the anti-Israel battle and in the anti-Soviet crusade. Meanwhile, it used its wealth to fund fund mosques and schools all over the world. Unfortunately, of the main schools of jurisprudence within Sunni Islam, the Hanbali is the most anti-reason. This is the school prevalent in Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi-Islam. So, I think the Saudi's as a government have played a significant role in the growth of the more primitive strains of Islam. 

 

The Saudi government did not encourage Bin Laden's attack against the U.S., and they see ISIS as an enemy. In private, some  Saudi elites will say that they have a tiger by the tail: they try to keep the most violent streams ion check, but they also "have" to support a fairly primitive form of Islam or else they would lose power. However, one cannot control the evil ideologies one supports. More exactly: if you support an evil ideology, it is difficult to stop some people taking it to its next step on the rungs of evil. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. I mostly agree. But you're the one who used "terrorism" in your OP, instead of Islamic Fundamentalism, to argue that it's morally legitimate to bomb the United States "because it supports terrorism".

I didn't give a meaning for jihad, all I said was that it's not terrorism. There's not even any point in discussing it, it's too obvious that jihad and terrorism is not the same thing.

 

There's no point smart-arsing about "terrorism" vs "Islamic Fundamentalism" vs "Jihad" here as if they were unrelated. Terrorism is already implicit in Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihad (let's not start now with "inner" vs "outer" Jihad on top of all this, we all know what version applies in this context) as the means to achieve the end. If someone supports one of the latter two, he automatically supports the former implicitly. It bears no relevance which one you support first as a state, the existential end result is terrorist attacks, i.e. the same.

 

But if you love hairsplitting so much (which I clearly don't understand why), I can give you "Wahhabi Islam", "Radical Islam", "Islamic extremism", "Totalitarian Islam" and you name it  B)  Don't see how such non-essentials in difference would undermine the inescapable faith-force nexus common to all of them. You need to start finding the one in the many, as opposed to being concrete-bound about such things.

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you still think you can find a way to morally legitimize bombing the United States, for supporting Saudi Arabia, without using the word "terrorism", go ahead. Rephrase your OP, and let's see what we have. How exactly is it justified to bomb the US for cooperating with a US friendly religious regime in a deeply religious Muslim country in which almost everyone wants a religious regime.

Did you read it? The whole thing, all three articles? How long did it take you?

No need to abstain from the word "terrorism" or from replacing it with a whole bunch of different terms, as explained in my previous post.

As for the justification, that was actually my question. But it rested on you understanding S.A.'s role in it.

 

Remember me telling you about the magic keys: "Ctrl + F"? Certainly not hours. But that's just some texts for you for crosschecking, you should listen to people in the field who actually know what is going on in the region and had to deal with it, while at the same time have no religious agenda going on. As I also posted to you a statement by Israeli Army veteran Yaron Brook. Watch some debates like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=macoMMlnlMc. And look at what fundamentalists preach in the mosques and incite for in masses without being put in jail in their countries...You think this would go unpunished in the West and tell me "oh no, those states are certainly not supporting terrorism (or whatever you like to call it?)". Damn, I'm not a public library here B)

 

The notion that Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of anti-US terrorism is nowhere near an established fact. And you still haven't presented any evidence that the Saudi government is sponsoring anti-US terrorism.

You haven't even tried. All you've been doing is desperately trying to move the goal posts, in at least three different ways:

1. You posted links to secret State Dep. documents in which Hillary Clinton is arguing that Saudi Arabia is not doing enough to PREVENT funding going to terrorists. Not doing enough to prevent private citizens from funding terrorism (in Hillary Clinton's opinion) is not the same thing as sponsoring terrorism.

2. You switched to accusing Saudi Arabia of sponsoring "jihad". Jihad is not terrorism.

3. You switched to accusing Saudi Arabia of being Muslim fundamentalists. Muslim fundamentalism is also not terrorism.

 

It is fully established, I've given you some facts, softwareNerd has given you futher ones that elaborate on the audio statement I posted here. So there's no desperation at all. I'm not here to write an essay for you, just look out there ;-)

 

Not seriously trying to prevent funding in the range of billions from going to terrorists as a state definitely IS supporting it. Unless you're admitting your incompetence and allowing foreign professionals/armies/policemen or whatever necessary into the country to do the police job for you that you cannot do, you're actually giving the go-ahead by neglecting your duties as a state.

 

Again, no need for smart-arsing about non-essentials here, so I didn't switch at all. If anything, I've only gone deeper to the roots of it.

Edited by DiscoveryJoy
Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet another one between failing to oppose it and failing to have the intention of opposing it.

So what?

I don't believe the Saudis do really want to stop terrorism; it would contradict their beliefs, on one level or another. That still doesn't make them active supporters.

If someone walks up and pokes your eye out for no reason, you can NOT blame everyone who failed to stop him!

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're asking. Please be more precise in your language. Does "the Saudis" mean the Al Saud family, the Saudi government, or just people who live in Saudi Arabia in general?

And does Islamic totalitarian ideology mean the desire for Islamic rule in general, in Muslim majority countries (including the kind of rule that exists in Saudi Arabia, where society is governed by religious principles, but the government allows and promotes economic and military cooperation with the West), or the desire to establish an Islamic rule hostile to all non-Muslims, especially the West

 

By Saudi I meant the Saudi government and by Islamic totalitarianism I meant the ideology that justifies the imposition of a global caliphate. It was a sincere question that I believe is intelligible to the average person on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By Saudi I meant the Saudi government and by Islamic totalitarianism I meant the ideology that justifies the imposition of a global caliphate. It was a sincere question that I believe is intelligible to the average person on this forum.

Without these clarifications, it wasn't an intelligible question. "the Saudis" doesn't necessarily refer to just the government, acting in an official capacity, and "Islamic totalitarian ideology" is also not one thing. Not all Islamists want a global caliphate. Most just want one in Muslim countries.

Now that you clarified, the answer is no, I'm not aware of any evidence that the Saudi government gives money to any groups actively planning to create a global caliphate. In fact, everything we know about the Saudi government says that they wouldn't do that. They want peace and economic cooperation with non-Muslim countries (controlled cooperation, but cooperation), not war.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...