Paris terror attacks

[Play by Numbers]

How is that a cliche?

The machinery of global capitalism will fund Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States regardless of US actions. If not America, then China. Or Russia. Or ... join the dots.

You are essentially saying that a form of either Iranian style sanctions (which has not stopped Iran's theocracy and funding of external Shiite terrorists) or Israel style BDS (which harms them in no way) will blunt Saudi Arabia, a country sitting on the largest supply of oil in the world? Come on, man.

I disagree strongly.

The difference between Iran's support for terrorist factions and Saudi Arabia's is orders of magnitude. Iran is protected by other state actors. However, Shiite terrorism, poses no threat to Russian and Chinese interests, whereas Sunni violence does. Both countries have no stomach for Salafism, and whilst they happily buy oil from SA and Qatar, it is the material support and protection that the US directly provides the ruling families, likewise the infrastructure that US and European businesses provide that allow them to spread radicalism. The oil trade is here to stay, but it is only one part of a long supply chain, that can be targeted.

I have never once suggested sanctions, this is your fantasy.

There are many, many things that could be done to limit complicity and weaken the spread of radicalism, by attacking the financials, without doing something as ludicrous ending trade with SA.

 

[TropperFarquhar]

You only take radicalisation on by getting the Muslim religion to identify why kids who have no future prospects feel alienated by Western Society, and turn to terrorism with the aid of figures in local mosques.

 

[sproketman]

I disagree strongly.

The difference between Iran's support for terrorist factions and Saudi Arabia's is orders of magnitude. Iran is protected by other state actors. However, Shiite terrorism, poses no threat to Russian and Chinese interests, whereas Sunni violence does. Both countries have no stomach for Salafism, and whilst they happily buy oil from SA and Qatar, it is the material support and protection that the US directly provides the ruling families, likewise the infrastructure that US and European businesses provide that allow them to spread radicalism. The oil trade is here to stay, but it is only one part of a long supply chain, that can be targeted.

I have never once suggested sanctions, this is your fantasy.

There are many, many things that could be done to limit complicity and weaken the spread of radicalism, by attacking the financials, without doing something as ludicrous ending trade with SA.

The Chinese will deal with anyone who can make them a dollar and expand their global influence. They have no fear of Sunni terrorism, and believe themselves ably equipped to put down any internal tension. The idea that they would not step in if the US withdrew is nonsense. The oligarchs of Russia would do the same - they are shameless.

You make assertions about 'attacking the financials' as being a solution, but where in practice has this worked? What evidence do you have for this being a workable method?

 

[deltablues]

That NYT piece is spot on.

Bombing ISIS alone will accomplish nothing. What is fuelling ISIS and al-Qaeda are the billions of petrodollars coming out of the Gulf states that provide the ideological basis for these movements. There's little difference between ISIS, al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia in terms of its laws and punishments. And all adhere to a radical, puritanical form of Islam i.e. Wahhabism.

Over the last three to four decades, private and public donors from Saudi have poured billions building Islamic schools, mosques, and exporting imams all over the world - from the poor regions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt to suburbs in France, UK, Australia, Germany etc.

There has been a gradual process of radicalisation for decades that has mostly stemmed from Saudi Arabia.

The US used this to its advantage in the 1980s when it worked with the Saudis to create the Afghan mujahideen, which later morphed into the Taliban and al-Qaeda and turned on their paymasters. But the counterproductive and contradictory Western policy needs to stop now. We cannot fight a war against radical Islam, while arm, do business, and politically support the head of the jihadist snake - Saudi Arabia.

If the US/West were serious about defeating ISIS/al-Qaeda and all these radical groups, they'd slap sanctions on Saudi tomorrow.

This 100%. But it will take a major mindset change to make it happen. Saudi Aramco is a big player and heavily entrenched in US politics.

If the transfer takes 20 years, it'll be all the rage.

There's a lag.

Good read though.

Thank you, but my main focus is on the politics (hence my crack at OP) viz. the cultural wars whereby if for example Islamic fundamentalists dropped a neutron bomb on Chicago (not that I have any real problem with Chicago disappearing [I mean this in the nicest possible way, President Obama - or perhaps not] we would have the Guardian and WAPO and its brethren whining about Muslims feeling threatened and made to feel uncomfortable as they walked thru the Western streets in an outfit they got from Tents R Us.

Please.

 

[Thats Wright]

This 100%. But it will take a major mindset change to make it happen. Saudi Aramco is a big player and heavily entrenched in US politics.

Thank you, but my main focus is on the politics (hence my crack at OP) viz. the cultural wars whereby if for example Islamic fundamentalists dropped a neutron bomb on Chicago (not that I have any real problem with Chicago disappearing [I mean this in the nicest possible way, President Obama - or perhaps not] we would have the Guardian and WAPO and its brethren whining about Muslims feeling threatened and made to feel uncomfortable as they walked thru the Western streets in an outfit they got from Tents R Us.

Please.

The economic blinkers, has to be. The dollar is deeper than short-term compassion. Western martyrdom? The processed thought bubble is feminized. For the good. But also for the weak.

 

[deltablues]

I don't understand why third world is pejorative, its original meaning is those countries outside the US/USSR aligned binary.

Neither do I. But we now PC where 1 = 3 and vice versa. Becuz we all be equal, right?

 

[deltablues]

The economic blinkers, has to be. The dollar is deeper than short-term compassion. Western martyrdom? The processed thought bubble is feminized. For the good. But also for the weak.

Really cool comment, TW - I don't fully understand it but I sure like the general vibe. It kind of reminds me of the great and late gonzo journalist Hunter S Thompson, who was from where I live in Louisville Kentucky [Loovill Kaintuhkee].

 

[Thats Wright]

Really cool comment, TW - I don't fully understand it but I sure like the general vibe. It kind of reminds me of the great and late gonzo journalist Hunter S Thompson, who was from where I live in Louisville Kentucky [Loovill Kaintuhkee].

Well spotted.

 

[GuruJane]

Ever seen the vid of Saddam being hanged, with the executioners spitting Shia (Nusayari ...) curses in his face before the floor falls?

That's where AQ in Iraq and the out of work but still skilled army officers found common cause.

Except that S. Hussein's execution came fully three years after AQ in Iraq had found common cause with the Baath army officers;
On August 29 2003 the Sunni fascist insurgency announced its war against the shiites by blowing up the leader of the shiites the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim at the Iman ali shrine in Najaf.
A week before that they had blown up the UN headquarters in Baghdad.

The fascist insurgency went on to murder tens of thousands of shiites before the Mahdi army and other shiites brutally retaliated in the summer of 2006. Under Mahdi remorselessness Sunni fascists started to dissolve. It was a near-perfect demonstration of application of middle east rules.

 

[fleabitten]

How much do you think the UAE pay their "60,000 guest workers", they are treated like slaves, that's how they build their sky scrapers.

I used UAE just as an example of the cost and the scale that is possible. If it's possible to do it in the UAE and in China (http://www.news.com.au/travel/world...s/news-story/6f24aa97092c38d7ed77b5b4d2b39d7a), it'd be possible in Tunisia or Senegal or any other progressive Muslim state that we could work with. How much does the world already spend on a crisis like this?

As a matter of interest, what is the current unemployment rate of the "refugees" we currently have in this country. For that matter, what is it in any country where there are large numbers of refugees.

A lot of that is because there aren't a lot of jobs out there and these are people coming in with few (or no) recognized qualifications or education and probably limited English. Language and cultural barriers would be less of a factor if they were going to developing Muslim countries to work while their future status was determined.

 

[Play by Numbers]

The Chinese will deal with anyone who can make them a dollar and expand their global influence. They have no fear of Sunni terrorism, and believe themselves ably equipped to put down any internal tension. The idea that they would not step in if the US withdrew is nonsense. The oligarchs of Russia would do the same - they are shameless.

You make assertions about 'attacking the financials' as being a solution, but where in practice has this worked? What evidence do you have for this being a workable method?

This is based on what exactly? Do you have the ear of the party, you seem confident in knowing the inner workings of both groups? Given a) the Saudi's would demand a degree of compliance to not support Iran and other Shiite groups, already an ally of both and b) would create immense internal pressure on both suitors, as each is fighting Arab resourced extremism within their borders, it makes little sense that either Russia or China would simply become the new Saudi benefactor.

If the US stepped away, it would be more likely that either would try and undermine the ruling families as opposed to swooping in and taking up the slack of decades of cooperation.

Likewise, this doesn't solve the problem of how do Saudi and Qatari players move funds and individuals, into western nations, without the cooperation of western businesses. Making this harder does not stop the spread of Salafism etc., but it slows it.

I am yet to read anything reasonable or halfway rational from you. What is your solution?

 

[sproketman]

This is based on what exactly? Do you have the ear of the party, you seem confident in knowing the inner workings of both groups? Given a) the Saudi's would demand a degree of compliance to not support Iran and other Shiite groups, already an ally of both and b) would create immense internal pressure on both suitors, as each is fighting Arab resourced extremism within their borders, it makes little sense that either Russia or China would simply become the new Saudi benefactor.

If the US stepped away, it would be more likely that either would try and undermine the ruling families as opposed to swooping in and taking up the slack of decades of cooperation.

Likewise, this doesn't solve the problem of how do Saudi and Qatari players move funds and individuals, into western nations, without the cooperation of western businesses. Making this harder does not stop the spread of Salafism etc., but it slows it.

I am yet to read anything reasonable or halfway rational from you. What is your solution?

I'm yet to read anything from you other than motherhood statements and empty bureaucratic speak. eg.

I mean really, these aren't outrageous suggestions. In fact, much of the legal and regulatory framework exists, it is the political will that needs strengthening.

Nothing what you've said is outrageous because it means nothing.

If the US stepped away, it would be more likely that either would try and undermine the ruling families as opposed to swooping in and taking up the slack of decades of cooperation.

But I thought ...

I cannot predict the future

 

[Play by Numbers]

I'm yet to read anything from you other than motherhood statements and empty bureaucratic speak. eg.

Nothing what you've said is outrageous because it means nothing.


But I thought ...

It was qualified as a possibility, there is no way to tell what will happen with certainty.

Empty bureaucratic speak, what does that even mean?

As I said, you offer nothing of value. Flimsy tangentially related statements, red herrings and the occasional strawman argument, that usually peters out to nothing.

 

[medusala]

I saw police with machine guns at a tube station this morning. First time in a long time I have seen that.

Likewise, this doesn't solve the problem of how do Saudi and Qatari players move funds and individuals, into western nations, without the cooperation of western businesses. Making this harder does not stop the spread of Salafism etc., but it slows it.

Read a great article a few years ago (posted link on here at the time) re how the Saudis via their "charities" were spreading wahabbism via schools and mosques in western countries and how this was largely responsible for the growing radicalisation. Doesn't fit with the Guardian/BBC line of blame the Iraq war but when you consider similar has happened in France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden etc there is probably some validity to it.

Re moving money - that's often how its done - "charities".

 

[QuietB]

This is based on what exactly? Do you have the ear of the party, you seem confident in knowing the inner workings of both groups? Given a) the Saudi's would demand a degree of compliance to not support Iran and other Shiite groups, already an ally of both and b) would create immense internal pressure on both suitors, as each is fighting Arab resourced extremism within their borders, it makes little sense that either Russia or China would simply become the new Saudi benefactor.

If the US stepped away, it would be more likely that either would try and undermine the ruling families as opposed to swooping in and taking up the slack of decades of cooperation.

Likewise, this doesn't solve the problem of how do Saudi and Qatari players move funds and individuals, into western nations, without the cooperation of western businesses. Making this harder does not stop the spread of Salafism etc., but it slows it.

I am yet to read anything reasonable or halfway rational from you. What is your solution?

One day someone will find a magic alternative to oil. Then the middle East will seriously implode

 

[MaddAdam]

The Chinese will deal with anyone who can make them a dollar and expand their global influence. They have no fear of Sunni terrorism, and believe themselves ably equipped to put down any internal tension. The idea that they would not step in if the US withdrew is nonsense. The oligarchs of Russia would do the same - they are shameless.

You make assertions about 'attacking the financials' as being a solution, but where in practice has this worked? What evidence do you have for this being a workable method?

They are terrified, utterly terrified, of the Uighurs ever getting seriously organised.

 

[MaddAdam]

Except that S. Hussein's execution came fully three years after AQ in Iraq had found common cause with the Baath army officers;
On August 29 2003 the Sunni fascist insurgency announced its war against the shiites by blowing up the leader of the shiites the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim at the Iman ali shrine in Najaf.
A week before that they had blown up the UN headquarters in Baghdad.

The fascist insurgency went on to murder tens of thousands of shiites before the Mahdi army and other shiites brutally retaliated in the summer of 2006. Under Mahdi remorselessness Sunni fascists started to dissolve. It was a near-perfect demonstration of application of middle east rules.

There were a great many factions early on. The real coalescing between the jihadis and the Baathists took a while to happen.

Recall Saddam was the greatest enemy of the jihadis there was before we knocked him off.

It took a while for the Shia ascendancy to bring those two former enemies together.

 

[sproketman]

They are terrified, utterly terrified, of the Uighurs ever getting seriously organised.

Why would they be terrified? On what basis do you make this assertion?

 

[sproketman]

It was qualified as a possibility, there is no way to tell what will happen with certainty.

Empty bureaucratic speak, what does that even mean?

As I said, you offer nothing of value. Flimsy tangentially related statements, red herrings and the occasional strawman argument, that usually peters out to nothing.

It means none of what you write has any meaning beyond playwords of people who spend their days filling white papers.

Let's suppose the US and UK crack down on financial transactions between the Saudis and the rest of the world. Let's assume they arrest those at HSBC who laundered money for terrorists. What does it stop? Do the Saudi's all of a sudden find it difficult to train Salafist preachers in their own borders and send them out into the world? Are they cut off from funding terror groups in Mali, Somalia, Nigeria? Are rogue bankers suddenly put off by dealing the House of Saud? Or does money find a way regardless?

 

[benchwarmer5]

It means none of what you write has any meaning beyond playwords of people who spend their days filling white papers.

Let's suppose the US and UK crack down on financial transactions between the Saudis and the rest of the world. Let's assume they arrest those at HSBC who laundered money for terrorists. What does it stop? Do the Saudi's all of a sudden find it difficult to train Salafist preachers in their own borders and send them out into the world? Are they cut off from funding terror groups in Mali, Somalia, Nigeria? Are rogue bankers suddenly put off by dealing the House of Saud? Or does money find a way regardless?

It finds a way until the whole system is broke
Then what ?

 

[MaddAdam]

Why would they be terrified? On what basis do you make this assertion?

"Splittism" is the great Chinese fear. All about internal stability. If the Uighurs got organised out east it would give other regions/peoples the same idea.

And it would expose the Chinese state for being a lot weaker than it needs its populace to believe it is.

 

[MaddAdam]

Good friend is in Iraq now doing help the goddam refugees who are all just Da'esh in disguise stuff.

She took this photo outside one of the biggest refugee camps in Kurdistan, Duhok.

blackcat - but of course the war is all staged, filmed in a Hollywod backlot, to fool the sheple into accepting fiat money overlordism.

No real people, no real emotions, no real choices, no memory.

All just staged.

 

[Little Big John]

I saw police with machine guns at a tube station this morning. First time in a long time I have seen that.

Usually they're just stationed outside major financial institutions in the City, yeah?

 

[MaddAdam]

Usually they're just stationed outside major financial institutions in the City, yeah?

And the Ecuadorian embassy.

 

[sproketman]

"Splittism" is the great Chinese fear. All about internal stability. If the Uighurs got organised out east it would give other regions/peoples the same idea.

And it would expose the Chinese state for being a lot weaker than it needs its populace to believe it is.

Uyghurs are just one of five poisons.