The attempted coup d'état against Trump continues

[Typhoon]

yeh, then you get al queda, you smash it, you get isis, you smash it, you get daesh.

No, the problem is we haven't smashed any of them yet. Smashing people has a historical success rating of about 100%.

the middle east is europes, russia and chinas problem, trump should have let them have it.

There was this thing.

Right. With 15/19 perpetrators* Saudi Arabians the US response was to invade Iraq.

*plus 1 Egyptian, 1 UAE, and 2 Lebanese.

[Doc]

yeh, then you get al queda, you smash it, you get isis, you smash it, you get daesh.

No, the problem is we haven't smashed any of them yet. Smashing people has a historical success rating of about 100%.

the middle east is europes, russia and chinas problem, trump should have let them have it.

There was this thing.

Right. With 15/19 perpetrators* Saudi Arabians the US response was to invade Iraq.

*plus 1 Egyptian, 1 UAE, and 2 Lebanese.

You do know don't you that Saudis were intentionally chosen by Al Qaeda as they figured that the KSA would lose US support giving Al Qaeda a shot to take over?

[Zack Morris]

Al Qaeda's leader was a Saudi and much of Islamic extremist thinking can be traced back to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

But now Trump is kissing Saudi ass and so you have to, too. Haha!

[Typhoon]

yeh, then you get al queda, you smash it, you get isis, you smash it, you get daesh.

No, the problem is we haven't smashed any of them yet. Smashing people has a historical success rating of about 100%.

the middle east is europes, russia and chinas problem, trump should have let them have it.

There was this thing.

Right. With 15/19 perpetrators* Saudi Arabians the US response was to invade Iraq.

*plus 1 Egyptian, 1 UAE, and 2 Lebanese.

You do know don't you that Saudis were intentionally chosen by Al Qaeda as they figured that the KSA would lose US support giving Al Qaeda a shot to take over?

Considering the current regime, no one would have noticed.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

So what you guys are saying is that we should profile criminals by their ethnicity?

Very interesting approach.

[noddy]

its like targetting biker gangs for the meth trade, annoying a few midlife crisis accountants on their shiny new hogs is a small price to pay

the point wasnt about profiling saudis, it was about where does the terrorism get its funding and ideology from, and thats mostly the saudis and to a certain extent, the egyptians.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


McCain meets Mujahedin
Same Mujahedin Terrorists who killed so many American serviceman in Iran

2017415133437522790541.jpg (16.95 KiB) Viewed 364 times

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bew ... -mek-11118


http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-war-on- ... ek/5410006


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ran-214479


.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

its like targetting biker gangs for the meth trade, annoying a few midlife crisis accountants on their shiny new hogs is a small price to pay

the point wasnt about profiling saudis, it was about where does the terrorism get its funding and ideology from, and thats mostly the saudis and to a certain extent, the egyptians.

All the points in the world won't stop me from being a smart-mouth.

But still, the devil's advocate position is that Saudi and Egyptian nonsense is a molehill.

Wahhabism isn't responsible for Ba'athist fascism; it isn't responsible for Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn't agitate for Saudis to be revanchist in character nor harbor resentments based on some sort of national irrendentism.

The case that the Taliban and ISIS are fires started by Wahhabism is over-stated. Both were the ancedents of para-military organizations arising in power vacuums.

The Saudis rule a very unattractive society. But their foreign policy runs along the sort of reasons of state you'd expect for the area, their rulers are indigenous and Arabia is going to be a regional power/influence no matter who is in charge.

Wahhabism's biggest influence is in depressing women's labor and attempting to maintain some sort of order between the sexes. The latter barely works and the former is neither here nor there when they lag in training their male offspring in much of anything.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


You do know don't you that Saudis were intentionally chosen by Al Qaeda as they figured that the KSA would lose US support giving Al Qaeda a shot to take over ?

.

.. what a disaster, what a disaster

Now the crooks want Joe to believe Wahhabi the good guys, and, terrorist just want to spoil good Wahhabi-American relations

Was Bin Landen not Saudi ?

Come on .. all this insult to American Joe


What do you have to say to widows of Col Paul Shaffer and Lt. Colonel Jack Turner ? .. Pfui

and

"The voices supporting the MEK are ignoring the lessons of some of the most catastrophic U.S. foreign-policy mistakes in the past few decades, urging Washington to repeat history."

Overhyping the threat of an adversary and blindly supporting groups opposing it led to the creation of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Supporting the MEK is neither in accordance with American values, nor beneficial to U.S. interests.

Seems, lesson not learnd


.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

.


You do know don't you that Saudis were intentionally chosen by Al Qaeda as they figured that the KSA would lose US support giving Al Qaeda a shot to take over ?

.

.. what a disaster, what a disaster

Now the crooks want Joe to believe Wahhabi the good guys, and, terrorist just want to spoil good Wahhabi-American relations

Was Bin Landen not Saudi ?

Come on .. all this insult to American Joe


What do you have to say to widows of Col Paul Shaffer and Lt. Colonel Jack Turner ? .. Pfui

and

"The voices supporting the MEK are ignoring the lessons of some of the most catastrophic U.S. foreign-policy mistakes in the past few decades, urging Washington to repeat history."

Overhyping the threat of an adversary and blindly supporting groups opposing it led to the creation of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Supporting the MEK is neither in accordance with American values, nor beneficial to U.S. interests.

Seems, lesson not learnd


.

What good guys? We're a long way from picking good guys here.

The choice is between those who will annoy us and those who wish to seriously damage us.

Dopey princes throwing their money around fall into the first group.

[Mr. Perfect]

Can we say the coup detat has failed yet?

More like it quietly succeeded.

Do you know what a coup is?

[Mr. Perfect]

Right. With 15/19 perpetrators* Saudi Arabians the US response was to invade Iraq.

*plus 1 Egyptian, 1 UAE, and 2 Lebanese.

And...

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Do you know what a coup is ?

.

YES


.

[Mr. Perfect]

Sounds like no.

[noddy]

its like targetting biker gangs for the meth trade, annoying a few midlife crisis accountants on their shiny new hogs is a small price to pay

the point wasnt about profiling saudis, it was about where does the terrorism get its funding and ideology from, and thats mostly the saudis and to a certain extent, the egyptians.

All the points in the world won't stop me from being a smart-mouth.

But still, the devil's advocate position is that Saudi and Egyptian nonsense is a molehill.

Wahhabism isn't responsible for Ba'athist fascism; it isn't responsible for Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn't agitate for Saudis to be revanchist in character nor harbor resentments based on some sort of national irrendentism.

The case that the Taliban and ISIS are fires started by Wahhabism is over-stated. Both were the ancedents of para-military organizations arising in power vacuums.

The Saudis rule a very unattractive society. But their foreign policy runs along the sort of reasons of state you'd expect for the area, their rulers are indigenous and Arabia is going to be a regional power/influence no matter who is in charge.

Wahhabism's biggest influence is in depressing women's labor and attempting to maintain some sort of order between the sexes. The latter barely works and the former is neither here nor there when they lag in training their male offspring in much of anything.

this is not my understanding.

the above only covers the official channels and policy of the king.

the funding of all the dodgy madrass and terrorist groups is happening in the bitter princes and wannabee clerics who are not part of the top layer of saudi society but still get solid amounts of oil loot.

these are the ones getting a free pass because of the mess of politics involved in keeping the king in place.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

its like targetting biker gangs for the meth trade, annoying a few midlife crisis accountants on their shiny new hogs is a small price to pay

the point wasnt about profiling saudis, it was about where does the terrorism get its funding and ideology from, and thats mostly the saudis and to a certain extent, the egyptians.

All the points in the world won't stop me from being a smart-mouth.

But still, the devil's advocate position is that Saudi and Egyptian nonsense is a molehill.

Wahhabism isn't responsible for Ba'athist fascism; it isn't responsible for Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn't agitate for Saudis to be revanchist in character nor harbor resentments based on some sort of national irrendentism.

The case that the Taliban and ISIS are fires started by Wahhabism is over-stated. Both were the ancedents of para-military organizations arising in power vacuums.

The Saudis rule a very unattractive society. But their foreign policy runs along the sort of reasons of state you'd expect for the area, their rulers are indigenous and Arabia is going to be a regional power/influence no matter who is in charge.

Wahhabism's biggest influence is in depressing women's labor and attempting to maintain some sort of order between the sexes. The latter barely works and the former is neither here nor there when they lag in training their male offspring in much of anything.

this is not my understanding which is that the above only covers the official channels.

the funding of all the dodgy madrass and terrorist groups is happening in the bitter princes and wannabee clerics who are not part of the top layer of saudi society but still get solid amounts of oil loot.

these are the ones getting a free pass because of the mess of politics involved in keeping the king in place.

Well, I don't disagree.

Especially with it being a mess where we sorta slap lipstick on the stroppy pig and hope for the best.

I guess it comes down to how confident one should be that dissatisfied people on the totem pole can remain marginalized (and their damaged minimized) in comparison to the unknown or a strengthened Shia crescent coalition.

To paraphrase something I once read, "Would you rather deal with a bunch of princes financing guys who'll run you over and shoot about ten people per incident or would you rather deal with Iran controlling almost the whole of the oil supply and with the know how to build nuclear ICBMs capable of hitting all of us on the map?"

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

There is also the uncomfortable bit that the US now has a long history of having alternative governments and other general crazies on their own payroll, always ready to take over the moment there is a color revolution....

...maybe we should bomb the rubble some more, much easier than sorting this all out.

[noddy]

maybe we should bomb the rubble some more, much easier than sorting this all out.

this is probably the actual truth.

im not 100% convinced the dichotomy above (saudi or iran) is the only possible outcome but its not my area of expertise so . meh.

---

its the trifecta of high immigration, authoritarian surveillance and low level chaos in the middle east that bothers me, the sustained outcomes of all this are not adding up to something pleasant.

if trump represents the pressures from those 3, then i suspect he is but the first of his kind and the wet lefties will be dreaming of how moderate he was compared to what followed.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

maybe we should bomb the rubble some more, much easier than sorting this all out.

this is probably the actual truth.

im not 100% convinced the dichotomy above (saudi or iran) is the only possible outcome but its not my area of expertise so . meh.

Well, there is the Turks....

Here's the record-scratching answer: announce that we'll be handing Mecca to the Jews- put the Jews in charge of Arabia.

All fighting will cease immediately because the apoplexies and aneurysms will wipe whole organizations off the map.

[noddy]

Well, there is the Turks....

yeh yeh, dont rub it in.

more seriously, i cant help but think the iranians would be rather limited in their ability to use nuclear weapons as much of a threat, their would be no shortage of directions from which the return fire would come good n hard and they arent that stupid.

trust is a big word but i cant see them being end-days loonie like spengler thinks they will be.

Here's the record-scratching answer: announce that we'll be handing Mecca to the Jews- put the Jews in charge of Arabia.

All fighting will cease immediately because the apoplexies and aneurysms will wipe whole organizations off the map.

now your talking.

should keep em all busy for centuries.

[Doc]

CNBC asks:

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



.

Hmmm .. lookin @ that Brand new Humvee with Islamic State flag on, and bombing secular Assad, it sure feels that way


Did you find out how Islamic state got those 20,000 same colour same model Toyota SUV ? specifically ordered for Islamic State, why American media not report who ordered and paid for those Toyotas ? ? 20,000 Toyota SUV @ $ 20K a pop = makes $ 400 million .. who paid for that ?


.

[Mr. Perfect]

obama paid for them.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Gallup Poll
Americans no longer think Trump keeping his promises

Only 45 percent of people think Trump keeps his promises, down from 62 percent in February, according to a Gallup survey

.

[Mr. Perfect]

Gallup predicted Hillary as President, by 92%. You have to watch that fake news.