Thread: What makes terrorists?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Wrong again, the US did have troops in SA when it happened. You are terribly misinformed cerubat, which explain why you are so angry and revengeful in your posts. 911 happened because you had troops stationed there. If you hadn't any troops, 911 wouldn't have happened and you guys would still have your head in the sand regarding terrorism.

Where in Saudia Arabia did the United States have military personnel stationed ?

There were NO TROOPS stationed in on 9/11 or for several years before.

Originally Posted by storekeeper

YOU don't really think they're terrorists now do you ?

Who is "they"? No, I don't think everybody who gets arrested and locked up is a terrorist, DO YOU?

^^ you are joking, right ?

you are more misinformed than I thought, even of your own military, which speaks volume for the rest of your "military" arguments.

Start here
Military to leave Saudi Arabia

Military to leave Saudi Arabia
U.S. moving amid strained relations

By Stephen J. Hedges

Marking the end of an era, the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday.

Appearing at a press conference in Riyadh with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, Rumsfeld said the Pentagon was ordering the redeployment, which involves mostly members of the U.S. Air Force, because there no longer is a threat from deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The changes are to take place this summer.

The Persian Gulf, Rumsfeld said, "is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq." He also said U.S. planes no longer are needed to enforce a "no-fly" zone over Iraq. American military aircraft patrolling the southern half of Iraq did so in part from Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. also is likely to continue to use air bases in Iraq, increasing its military "footprint" in the region overall.

The decision to draw down forces in Saudi Arabia, though largely symbolic given the many U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, reflects a shift in the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, which built military ties during the 1980s. Though the two countries were once close, dealings between them have become strained since the Sept. 11 attacks and the discovery of evidence linking Saudi citizens and charities to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for them.

Many Saudis resent the presence of U.S. forces in the nation that is home to Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, and some--including Osama bin Laden--had used this as a justification for terrorism.

The pullout from Saudi Arabia also occurs as Pentagon strategists consider broader redeployments and reductions in troop levels overseas. The Army alone has 328,900 troops in 120 countries.

U.S. Gen. James Jones, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said in Washington on Monday that a number of NATO's 499 military facilities in Europe will likely be closed. Some will be replaced by new, smaller bases in Eastern European countries that have recently joined the alliance.

Though a longtime U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia refused to allow U.S. planes to use its bases during the war with Iraq. The U.S. was allowed to direct air operations from its Combined Forces Air Command center at Prince Sultan Air Base in central Saudi Arabia.

The withdrawal, Rumsfeld said, would not diminish the U.S.-Saudi security relationship. About 400 U.S. military personnel are to remain to train Saudi troops.

Prince Sultan welcomed the U.S. decision but suggested that it was not a result of pressure from his government.

"Obviously, there is no need for them to remain," he said. "This does not mean that we requested them to remove their forces from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

Tuesday's decision will help ease an increasingly uncomfortable situation for the U.S. and Saudi governments.

Since 1980, the two nations have had an agreement in which four American AWACS surveillance planes and three aerial tankers had operated from Riyadh, and successive U.S. administrations in the 1980s and 1990s sold Saudis arms, including AWACs.

Troops welcomed in '90

U.S. forces flooded into Saudi Arabia in fall 1990, after Hussein's troops invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia welcomed the troops, and its own forces fought to push Iraq out of Kuwait.

After the war, about 4,000 uniformed Americans--mostly Air Force members--stayed in Saudi Arabia as part of the no-fly patrol operations, and as a check against further Iraqi offensives. However, they became a rallying point for Muslim fundamentalists, who charged the U.S. was trying to increase its influence over the Saudi royal family and the nation's oil reserves.

"The presence of the U.S. forces gives a lot of fuel to the virulent, anti-American Islamic forces that certainly command an audience in Saudi, and in the broader Arab world," said Jamil Khoury, an Arab specialist and business consultant who teaches at the University of Chicago. "It's become a real sore point in our relationship with the royal family, because it has become too burdensome to them."

For the U.S., the presence in Saudi Arabia was also yielding diminishing returns, even before the host country refused to participate in the second war against Iraq. U.S. personnel were under constant threat of terrorist attack after the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex, which killed 19 service members.

U.S. forces an irritant

Increasingly, the U.S. presence had become a central irritant for those pressing to reform the royal family's strong-armed rule and the fundamentalists who want to replace that government with a religious regime.

"As a society, it is overdue for fundamental political change," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank. "And notwithstanding all the oil they're sitting on top of, we probably don't want to be there when that change occurs."

Leaving Saudi Arabia does not mean that U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region will decline. The Iraq war was directed largely from U.S. Central Command headquarters, which had been established in Qatar. U.S. forces also used expanded bases and runways in Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. A sizable U.S. force is expected to remain there while efforts to return order and establish a functioning government in Iraq are under way.

Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki has predicted that up to "several hundred thousand" U.S. troops may be needed to enforce the peace in postwar Iraq, though Rumsfeld's office has said that figure is high. More than 250,000 U.S. military personnel were in the region during the war, though many of those troops have begun to return home.

The U.S. is likely to keep using Iraqi air bases, analysts suggest, and those may be vital if the Bush administration intends to keep pressure on states that it has accused of supporting terrorism and that may now pose the next threat to U.S. interests in the region.

"If you're thinking about blowing up Syria or Iran, all those Iraqi bases are going to be far more useful than a base in Saudi Arabia would have been," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. "I think the governments of Iran and Syria are going to be very nervous with a large American military presence on their borders."

GRAPHIC: PHOTOPHOTO (color): Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (front row, right) waits in his aircraft Tuesday before flying out of Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. He said most U.S. forces would leave the kingdom. Reuters photo by Luke Frazza.

Originally Posted by surasak

No kidding because we attacked the wrong country!

But, that begs the question: was any nation responsible for 9-11? There has been no proof of such.

In fact, the terrorists involved in 9-11 were privately financed and well financed. So, even the poverty characteristic was flawed.

Unless there was state sponsored terrorism we have no business invading and toppling governments.

Does that mean we should invade and topple governments that do sponsor state terrorism?

If so, does it have to be state sponsored terror against Christians, or are Jews also included?

Did SH openly announce his support for suicide bombers in Israel, together with something like $25k bounty to the family per martyr, and would this fall within a fair definition of state sponsored terror?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^^ you are joking, right ?

you are more misinformed than I thought, even of your own military, which speaks volume for the rest of your "military" arguments.

Nope. I had no idea the Air Force was sharing a base there.

There was no reason to be there when you have an aircraft carrier that
can patrol international waters in the Persian Gulf.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

You yanks get so gung-ho about "payback" when you get your nose bloodied, but yet seem so surprised when other people react the same way.

The only thing that I'm surprised about is those people in the world who support this group of extremists who do not represent the majority of people in Iraq.

The only thing that surpises me is people who can't see the forests for the trees ... these extremists want your head in a noose just as bad they want to saw mine off. An infidel is an infidel PERIOD unless you convert to Islam.

Amen!

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

There was no reason to be there

Osama would agree, and this was his "motives" for 911.

Of course, with Iraq, thousands of new Osama have new motives now.

A safer world for sure.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Osama would agree, and this was his "motives" for 911..

I highly doubt that was his sole motive. It had nothing to do with his being expelled from the country, right ? Didn't they take his SA citizenship away from him ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by ceburat

We had no troops in their country when they flew planes into buildings in NYC.

Wrong again, the US did have troops in SA when it happened. You are terribly misinformed cerubat, which explain why you are so angry and revengeful in your posts. 911 happened because you had troops stationed there. If you hadn't any troops, 911 wouldn't have happened and you guys would still have your head in the sand regarding terrorism.

Is there a difference between being invited and invading in the dictionary, except that they are spelled differently?

We were there with the approval of the Saudie Govt. If terrorist did not like that they should have taken it up with the Saudie Govt.

No, You are teribly misinformed. I don't think like you because I have no ratical thinking. I don't hate people for stupid reasons. I don't approve of killing women and children to prove a point.The friendship of the US and SA. The agreements (what ever they call them) that have brought some peace in the ME, between Jordan and SA with Israel. These are the positive actions that we need more of. Not you B. S.

If so, does it have to be state sponsored terror against Christians, or are Jews also included?

That's a funny question.
Does it make any difference to your argument which group the terrorism is directed at?

Originally Posted by ceburat

If terrorist did not like that they should have taken it up with the Saudie Govt.

In the eyes of the left wing loonies due process is only applicable after the extremists are rounded up and held in place like Guantanamo Bay. Before that they are free to mame, torture and terrorize whoever they want.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by ceburat

If terrorist did not like that they should have taken it up with the Saudie Govt.

In the eyes of the left wing loonies due process is only applicable after the extremists are rounded up and held in place like Guantanamo Bay. Before that they are free to mame, torture and terrorize whoever they want.

You keep preaching. I keep saying Amen. Soon we will have a sermon.

Right on Brother.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^^ you are joking, right ?

you are more misinformed than I thought, even of your own military, which speaks volume for the rest of your "military" arguments.

Nope. I had no idea the Air Force was sharing a base there.

There was no reason to be there when you have an aircraft carrier that
can patrol international waters in the Persian Gulf.

Yep. Wasn't it Bahrain that built a huge airbase that was used in Desert Storm? We'll move next door. No big deal about KSR it was an unecessay irritant to religious people.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^^ you are joking, right ?

you are more misinformed than I thought, even of your own military, which speaks volume for the rest of your "military" arguments.

Nope. I had no idea the Air Force was sharing a base there.

There was no reason to be there when you have an aircraft carrier that
can patrol international waters in the Persian Gulf.

Yep. Wasn't it Bahrain that built a huge airbase that was used in Desert Storm? We'll move next door. No big deal about KSR it was an unecessay irritant to religious people.

I'm not curious enough to research it further but something is fishy about this. I always knew there were contractors there. And when I did a little research the numbers seem to fluctuate way below the 7,000 troop level mentioned. I guess it doesn't matter though ... no reason for them to be there. As far as I'm concerned the Air Force is archaic.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by surasak

Regarding the terrorists: if you want to capture them and bring them to justice then you must do so under the very same justice system you expect others to follow. That means capturing them and bringing them back to the U.S. for trial (if they in fact broke our laws). How many of the thousands in detainment were responsible for 9-11 or any other terrorist attack against on American soil? What right to we have to round up thousands and confine without charges and without a trial for years on end?

This just made me laugh my ass off ... what the hell kinda logic is that ?

YOU don't really think they're terrorists now do you ?

If they are terrorists and we can't prove it other than they were captured in a battle area ... do you want us to put them up at the Hilton as well for their trials ? Sorry, but it's a fact of an unconventional war ... if they don't wear uniforms to identify themselves as combatants then it's going to be a longer process to seperate the guilty from the innocent. Sounds like more PC bullshit to me ... fuck man, why don't we just arm the extermists ourselves?

Slightly off topic, but ...You remind me of these clowns back in the USA who have forgotten that places prison are primarily for punishment not rehabilitation.

You conveniently left off the conditional clause "if they broke our laws."

We don't have the right to round up people in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere and punish them under U.S. law (unless we find proof that they were responsible for 9-11 or some other attack against U.S. soil...sorry, attacking U.S. soldiers in someone else's jurisdiction doesn't count for me because our troops shouldn't be there in the first place). That's for the Afghan or Iraqi or other goverment to deal with.

If you are suggesting that a fair trial even for the worst offender isn't on the table then you are no different than those people. Even Tim McVeigh who single handedly killed more people than any of the 9-11 terrorists got a fair trial. That is what separates us from them: even the worst offenders still have rights. If we pick and choose who gets a fair trial and who doesn't then you might as well throw the Constitution out with the bath water because that is exactly what the neocons have done over the past 5 years.

Give them a public trial and if guilty then hang the sonofabitches. But don't lower your moral standard because someone else chooses to.

By the way surasak ... in one of these threads today butterfly proved something you couldn't a while back when we were talking about troops in Saudia Arabia. I just thought I'd concede that to you belatedly.

Originally Posted by surasak

Give them a public trial and if guilty then hang the sonofabitches. But don't lower your moral standard because someone else chooses to.

Like I'm going to take some seriously who thinks it would be better to break the law and assassinate people covertly.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Sorry, but it's a fact of an unconventional war ... if they don't wear uniforms to identify themselves as combatants then it's going to be a longer process to seperate the guilty from the innocent. Sounds like more PC bullshit to me ... fuck man, why don't we just arm the extermists ourselves?

Did all combatants in the American Revolution wear the exact same uniform clearly identifying themselves as Colonial soldiers fighting the British? I thought not.

What's good for the hypocritical goose is clearly not good for the gander.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by surasak

Give them a public trial and if guilty then hang the sonofabitches. But don't lower your moral standard because someone else chooses to.

Like I'm going to take some seriously who thinks it would be better to break the law and assassinate people covertly.

But supporting a massive quagmire sucking up thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is the better moral way to go?

How many hijackers are still alive?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Sorry, but it's a fact of an unconventional war ... if they don't wear uniforms to identify themselves as combatants then it's going to be a longer process to seperate the guilty from the innocent. Sounds like more PC bullshit to me ... fuck man, why don't we just arm the extermists ourselves?

Did all combatants in the American Revolution wear the exact same uniform clearly identifying themselves as Colonial soldiers fighting the British? I thought not.

What's good for the hypocritical goose is clearly not good for the gander.

You just don't get it ... as far as I'm concerned what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm all for removing embedded reporters and getting on with the business of war.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

By the way surasak ... in one of these threads today butterfly proved something you couldn't a while back when we were talking about troops in Saudia Arabia. I just thought I'd concede that to you belatedly.

About the air force bases, right?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

By the way surasak ... in one of these threads today butterfly proved something you couldn't a while back when we were talking about troops in Saudia Arabia. I just thought I'd concede that to you belatedly.

About the air force bases, right?

Yep ... you were right. I've already had my ass handed to me by butterfly over that.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Sorry, but it's a fact of an unconventional war ... if they don't wear uniforms to identify themselves as combatants then it's going to be a longer process to seperate the guilty from the innocent. Sounds like more PC bullshit to me ... fuck man, why don't we just arm the extermists ourselves?

Did all combatants in the American Revolution wear the exact same uniform clearly identifying themselves as Colonial soldiers fighting the British? I thought not.

What's good for the hypocritical goose is clearly not good for the gander.

You just don't get it ... as far as I'm concerned what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm all for removing embedded reporters and getting on with the business of war.

I asked the question already to someone else: if a foreign invader came into the United States and the U.S. military was too impotent to deal with the problem would you take up arms against the invader or would you fold?

Originally Posted by surasak

I asked the question already to someone else: if a foreign invader came into the United States and the U.S. military was too impotent to deal with the problem would you take up arms against the invader or would you fold?

By the remarks posted by folks around this here fine forum, my guess is the lot of 'em would welcome the invaders with open arms...

Originally Posted by surasak

I asked the question already to someone else: if a foreign invader came into the United States and the U.S. military was too impotent to deal with the problem would you take up arms against the invader or would you fold?

Seems like a good analogy but it's weak. The specific example I hope you are referring to is Iraq. If I was in the same situation as the Iraqi people were then I would be happy that somebody thought enough to finally give me a chance at freedom. Especially the freedom to piss and moan about everything my government did to me.

And if I had a group like say the KKK or the Black Panthers telling me that the invaders were wrong to free me from the threat of murder, rape, torture then I would take up arms against those extremists. That's the difference between Americans and Iraqis though ... we don't sit around waiting for somebody else to free us or save us.