Saudi Arabia admits Khashoggi is dead

[smokingjacket]

I don't follow. It's a loose network of ideology, methods and funding. It's a group that existed, at least at one point. My question is why Israel wasn't a target for its representatives?

What's the difference between the original goals of Hamas and Islamic State? Hamas tried to implement the exact same Sharia society in Gaza when they came to power. It was less successful because they had less power but they're not in this wildly different universe. They came out of the Muslim Brotherhood as a I said and they rejected the whole concept of Israel as a nation refused to acknowledge up until last year the 1967 borders of Israeli and Palestinian territory, instead calling for a pan-Islamic state to replace Israel. Yasser Arafat's PLO on the other hand were very much in the national liberation camp because they were always extremely pro-Palestinian nationalism.

On August 19, 2018, the Al-Qaeda (AQ) Media Arm, Al-Sahab released an audio message from AQ leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri in which he harshly criticizes the Hamas organization and labels it a traitor.

In the 33-minute recording titled “Palestine Won’t Surrender to Traitors,” Zawahiri attacks the current policy and conduct of Hamas, which he claims is rife with contradictions, while most of the message addresses the Hamas policy document published on May 1, 2017, which asserts that the establishment of a Palestinian State according to the 1967 borders is the “agreed-upon and joint formula” of Hamas and the PLO.

According to Al-Zawahiri, the current Hamas leadership has betrayed the organization’s founders Ahmed Yassin and Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi, abandoned Islam, and opted for secularism.

https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com...cle_31712111-f64c-58bf-8f27-b06da349104b.html

Al-Qaeda trained operatives were in Palestine helping Hamas attack Israel in the 00's, it just wasn't called "an Al-Qaeda attack." Around 2006 some of these operatives tried to attack Hamas and take over because Hamas had participated in the election process which implied a law above god and accepting political boundaries. There were street gun battles but Hamas won.

 

[smokingjacket]

Al-Qaeda literally translates as The List....In this instance, it's the list of all the old Mujahidin fighters from the old Afghan war days against the Soviet Union.

Yeah but their initial Islamic ideology came out of the Muslim Brotherhood. I can't imagine there are too many Afghan campaign veterans in Al-Nusra.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Yeah but their initial Islamic ideology came out of the Muslim Brotherhood. I can't imagine there are too many Afghan campaign veterans in Al-Nusra.

You'd reckon they'd be the next generation fighters....sons of the old Mujahidin in other words.....Some of those guys would be well into their 70's & 80's by now, or long gone....See Osama Bin Laden for an age profile.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What's the difference between the original goals of Hamas and Islamic State? Hamas tried to implement the exact same Sharia society in Gaza when they came to power. It was less successful because they had less power but they're not in this wildly different universe. They came out of the Muslim Brotherhood as a I said and they rejected the whole concept of Israel as a nation refused to acknowledge up until last year the 1967 borders of Israeli and Palestinian territory, instead calling for a pan-Islamic state to replace Israel. Yasser Arafat's PLO on the other hand were very much in the national liberation camp because they were always extremely pro-Palestinian nationalism.

This seems like a bit of a rabbit hole.

Let's just say for a second that I accept everything you say about this shared lineage. Fine, no worries. That's not really the point I'm trying to investigate. I get it, you're saying there isn't that big a distinction between these various groups in terms of all coming out of the same soup.

Do you understand that I'm not making a particular argument either way? I'm not seeking to agree or disagree with you. I'm merely asking why Israel has not been a more popular target for these groups, Hamas aside. With that in mind, I'm not sure why we need to tackle the question of "is there a distinction between the groups?"

Al-Qaeda trained operatives were in Palestine helping Hamas attack Israel in the 00's, it just wasn't called "an Al-Qaeda attack." Around 2006 some of these operatives tried to attack Hamas and take over because Hamas had participated in the election process which implied a law above god and accepting political boundaries. There were street gun battles but Hamas won.

Fair enough. That's still not that much, though, is it? I still wonder why Israel wasn't targeted more. Although the text you quoted indicates there was a falling out between Hamas and the Al-Qaeda leadership of the day. And therefore maybe no common cause. As I said, an open question. I have no agenda.

 

[smokingjacket]

This seems like a bit of a rabbit hole.

Let's just say for a second that I accept everything you say about this shared lineage. Fine, no worries. That's not really the point I'm trying to investigate. I get it, you're saying there isn't that big a distinction between these various groups in terms of all coming out of the same soup.

Do you understand that I'm not making a particular argument either way? I'm not seeking to agree or disagree with you. I'm merely asking why Israel has not been a more popular target for these groups, Hamas aside. With that in mind, I'm not sure why we need to tackle the question of "is there a distinction between the groups?"

Fair enough. That's still not that much, though, is it? I still wonder why Israel wasn't targeted more. Although the text you quoted indicates there was a falling out between Hamas and the Al-Qaeda leadership of the day. And therefore maybe no common cause. As I said, an open question. I have no agenda.

One answer, Israel post 9/11 has been very good at playing the geopolitics of the Middle East. They have forged an alliance with the Saudi's and that has really changed the dynamics of conflict. For example, with IS, why would IS attack Israel? Their goals were to establish a caliphate in Syria and Northern Iraq and Israel were happy to see them continue if they weakened Assad and bled out the Iranian backed militias.

As for Al-Qaeda, I think it's very arguable how big of a distinction there was between some of the people involved in the bombing campaigns in Israel of the late 90's early 00's and certain members of Al-Qaeda but if we say there are, the main reason there weren't "Al-Qaeda attacks" on Israel is that it's not their turf and predating the creation of Al-Qaeda, Gaza has always had a lot of different Islamist, Marxist and national liberationist groups all desperate for notoriety and glory attacking the Israeli's. When Al-Qaeda tried to take over the running of the Palestinian Islamist resistance, they lost.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For example, with IS, why would IS attack Israel? Their goals were to establish a caliphate in Syria and Northern Iraq and Israel were happy to see them continue if they weakened Assad and bled out the Iranian backed militias.

IS have attacked soft targets all over the place. Sympathisers blew up a train station in Belgium, for example.

Were Israel really as tacitly supportive of IS as you suggest? I guess that's the crux of it.

As for Al-Qaeda, I think it's very arguable how big of a distinction there was between some of the people involved in the bombing campaigns in Israel of the late 90's early 00's and certain members of Al-Qaeda but if we say there are, the main reason there weren't "Al-Qaeda attacks" on Israel is that it's not their turf and predating the creation of Al-Qaeda, Gaza has always had a lot of different Islamist, Marxist and national liberationist groups all desperate for notoriety and glory attacking the Israeli's. When Al-Qaeda tried to take over the running of the Palestinian Islamist resistance, they lost.

Again though, al-Qaeda hit all kinds of targets abroad. NYC wasn't their turf either. But they were doing international terrorism so doesn't that mean it's all on the menu?

Your explanation is thoughtful and informed. But I still don't find it 100 percent satisfying. These groups sought to hit US and Western targets. Israel is the main US ally in the Middle East. I'd have thought that would have put Israel in the crosshairs? Maybe you're right. Maybe Israel played a double game that kept them out of the line of fire.

 

[QuietB]

So the explanation is that attacking Israel was just too much hassle?.

Maybe there simply is not enough upside?

You get a shitload more column inches upsetting people’s dinner plans in the West than you do attacking a nation like Israel that is pretty much in a permanent state of being attacked.

It is as simple as what gets the most attention isn’t it?

On top of that most modern terrorism in the West seems to be committed by whatever random nutcase agrees to act in the name of IS when other than inspiration from propaganda it is almost certain IS has nothing to do with it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Maybe there simply is not enough upside?

You get a shitload more column inches upsetting people’s dinner plans in the West than you do attacking a nation like Israel that is pretty much in a permanent state of being attacked.

It is as simple as what gets the most attention isn’t it?

On top of that most modern terrorism in the West seems to be committed by whatever random nutcase agrees to act in the name of IS when other than inspiration from propaganda it is almost certain IS has nothing to do with it.

If they are animated by "Western imperialism" surely the #1 US proxy in the Middle East gets a shout out. And what happened to just disliking the Jews? Once upon a time, that would have been reason enough.

 

[AM]

 

[Present Not Past]

All of the U.S, Britain & Israel sponsor, train & fund the sundry groups of Wahhabi terror cells.[/U]....That aint such a big secret any more.....It's also one of the major reasons for why they were losing the ideological war & have had to silence Assange & sought to diminish the standing of RT....Because both those elements were exposing their hypocrisy big time.....And so Assange & RT had to be portrayed as the rogue enemies of the West....And why?....Because they were exposing their bullshit for all the world to see.

Really? This is not a conspiracy thread where opinion Trumps actual facts.

 

[Total Power]

Diminish the status of RT.. Rofl...now i have heard it all. Since when did RT have any status? US MSM might be corrupt, but RT is openly corrupt and biased. I haven't even seen Russians defend RT like these fanbois do here. Shame

 

[Thrawn]

Diminish the status of RT.. Rofl...now i have heard it all. Since when did RT have any status? US MSM might be corrupt, but RT is openly corrupt and biased. I haven't even seen Russians defend RT like these fanbois do here. Shame

What do you think about Abby Martin?

 

[Total Power]

What do you think about Abby Martin?

Is that a trick question? they recruit conspiracy theoriests from US for a reason, not all of em works out obviously. The s**t gets too much eventually. Good on her though

 

[Thrawn]

Is that a trick question? they recruit conspiracy theoriests from US for a reason, not all of em works out obviously. The s**t gets too much eventually. Good on her though

I enjoy her. Empire Files is great.

 

[smokingjacket]

IS have attacked soft targets all over the place. Sympathisers blew up a train station in Belgium, for example.

Were Israel really as tacitly supportive of IS as you suggest? I guess that's the crux of it.

Again though, al-Qaeda hit all kinds of targets abroad. NYC wasn't their turf either. But they were doing international terrorism so doesn't that mean it's all on the menu?

Your explanation is thoughtful and informed. But I still don't find it 100 percent satisfying. These groups sought to hit US and Western targets. Israel is the main US ally in the Middle East. I'd have thought that would have put Israel in the crosshairs? Maybe you're right. Maybe Israel played a double game that kept them out of the line of fire.

If that's the crux of it, then yes, they were. Rebels in this scenario are nearly always Islamist rebels. Pretending these groups are anything different is a type of political correctness.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/0...ed-and-funded-rebel-groups-in-southern-syria/
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...-military-support-for-syrian-rebels-1.5826348

You don't understand what I mean when I say "turf." The US obviously had no Islamist groups claiming turf before 9/11. The US wasn't in a phase of revolutionary war; anti-monarchism or anti-colonialism that an islamist group could claim to represent.

 

[RupieDupie]

This is a symptom of an underlying corrupt and foul aetiology which has gripped the world. Trump and his actions embody this;

“He was murdered but... munny!!!”

Disgusting

 

[Elroo]

This is a symptom of an underlying corrupt and foul aetiology which has gripped the world. Trump and his actions embody this;

“He was murdered but... munny!!!”

Disgusting

Murdering a US citizen appears to be unimportant to the Orange Buffoon, but God forbid anyone who kneels during the national anthem!

 

[Thrawn]

This is a symptom of an underlying corrupt and foul aetiology which has gripped the world. Trump and his actions embody this;

“He was murdered but... munny!!!”

Disgusting

To be fair, most US politicians embody this. Massacres in Yemen and not a peep from the US govt.

 

[awaremind]

IS have attacked soft targets all over the place. Sympathisers blew up a train station in Belgium, for example.

Were Israel really as tacitly supportive of IS as you suggest? I guess that's the crux of it.

Again though, al-Qaeda hit all kinds of targets abroad. NYC wasn't their turf either. But they were doing international terrorism so doesn't that mean it's all on the menu?

Your explanation is thoughtful and informed. But I still don't find it 100 percent satisfying. These groups sought to hit US and Western targets. Israel is the main US ally in the Middle East. I'd have thought that would have put Israel in the crosshairs? Maybe you're right. Maybe Israel played a double game that kept them out of the line of fire.

Maybe they wanted to hit Israel but were unable due to security levels and fear of reprisals. Israel is a very strong military nation for its size and there would be virtually no sympathy for them. (Unlike Syria and Iraq and to a lesser degree western nations apparently. )

 

[its free real estate]

As with anything these days, who knows how accurate this is, but it's a good read nonetheless

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...79880c-f17b-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html

 

[awaremind]

To be fair, most US politicians embody this. Massacres in Yemen and not a peep from the US govt.

I kinda like how he’s making the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy obvious, it needs to happen so the masses can see the way the USA shits over everything regardless of president. It’s also funny to see the rest of the “leaders of the free world “ wrestling with whether to agree because it’s USA or not because it’s politically incorrect.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Khashoggi is pretty well Saudi Arabia's most well-known journo in the West....Hence the furore.

There was also a rather noteworthy one of late of a Bulgarian journalist who was both raped & murdered....she was well known for her work in investigating high-level corruption to do with the EU.



There was also the case of Daphne Galizia….A Maltese journalist who was killed in a car bomb, after she was responsible for the leak & release of the now infamous 'Panama papers'....Which revealed the level of rorts & tax evasions on the part of the world's mega filthy-rich.

Saudi prince suspect in Khashoggi murder case: UN official

UN Special Rapporteur Callamard said evidence suggests crime could not have taken place without the aid of Saudi prince - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hopefully a Biden administration will be less willing to play pattycake with these savages.

Saudi Arabia’s Worst Nightmare

No one is more anxious about a potential Biden presidency than Mohammed bin Salman.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[utility]

Hopefully a Biden administration will be less willing to play pattycake with these savages.

Saudi Arabia’s Worst Nightmare

No one is more anxious about a potential Biden presidency than Mohammed bin Salman.

foreignpolicy.com

Business is business. Bezos had an employee chopped up into little bits and was cutting deals a few months later.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Biden should impose sanctions.