ISIS...Islamic State Victims

[clivex]

What? Turkey and Pakistan align with Israel because they are democracies. ..?.... Bizarre

completely missing the point . They will no kow tow to Saudi because they are Pakistan and turkey first and foremost. They are much larger independent states with ambitions of their own . You haven't answered how this is supposed to sit with eu membership and nato.The fact that they are democracies illustrates the big differences between the states but is not the reason in the slightest but clearly you cannot have such a state with widely different governments

I'm not going over this again but the idea that they would fall into a Saudi led superstate is a complete nonsense.

Kudistan an is nothing to do its whether there will be superstate or not. Irrlelvant

 

[Warbler]

What? Turkey and Pakistan align with Israel because they are democracies. ..?.... Bizarre

Precisely, but that I'm afraid is the logical extension of your argument, not mine.

Look, this is what you wrote

"just accept that your assertion that Saudi is looking to build and lead such a entity is destroyed by the very nature of turkey and Pakistan. Not least because they are democracies"

For some reason, you think the fact that Turkey and Pakistan are democracies will prevent them allying with a decidely undemocratic state like Saudi Arabia. Following your logic then, they are natural bed fellows for Israel are they not? Well the answer is clearly no, because the common religious ground they share is a much more powerful instrument than any democratic calling. Indeed, democratic Turkey was running the Israel sea blockade of Gaza not so long ago wasn't it, whilst Pakistan is offering to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear missiles

I would abandon any notion that being a democracy as opposed to a heraditary monarchy will keep them apart, it won't. Its a frankly naive view if you genuinely believe it

 

[Warbler]

Kudistan an is nothing to do its whether there will be superstate or not. Irrlelvant

Kurdistan is highly relevant and potentially a real flash point. Your dismissal of it is clear evidence that you haven't thought it through and understood the significance

 

[Warbler]

You haven't answered how this is supposed to sit with eu membership and nato.

Oh, I'm happy to answer this, it's just that its such a dead end I wouldn't hold my breath on it. If I do though, are you prepared to turn your thoughts to Kurdistan and reveal your read on that situation?

Turkey applied for memebership in 1987 (nearly 30 years ago). Since then they've closed one chapter and I believe another 15 are still open. It's not imminent is it? Indeed, today we learn that Turkish fighter jets have been provocatively entering Greek airpsace. 22 breaches in 24 hours. This is more than the 17 secs that a SU24 entered Turkish airspace and got shot down

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/turkish-warplanes-violate-greek-airspace-22-times-within-24-hours-1544036

Turkey currently hosts about 4 million Syrian refugees. Do you really think the EU is about to accept Turkey into their arms with this flood of migrant population ready to charge across the continent? I think I'm right in saying that the French have some sort of clause that requires them to put Turkish membership to a referendum?. 25% of the population already vote for the National Front, but leaving that aside, if there's one country in Europe that isn't going to accept them, its the French after what they've endured in the last 15 months. Germany has been a long time opponent too. I think Austria requires a referendum as well. Greece and Cyprus hardly need explaining.

Erdogan started looking in other directions years ago after he was last rebuffed (Russia being one such country as irony has it!). The way he handled the pro democracy demosntrations in 2013 is hardly evidence of someone trying ingratiate himself to the EU is it?. Indeed, they stayed his application on the back of this which spawned Turkish public opinion to turn against the EU.

You're fond of using opinion polls as evidence (I don't think they are incidentally) but you might enjoy this one taken shortly after the Taksim Square demonstrations

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/new-euro...-a-drop-in-turkish-support-for-the-eu-4713737

As regards NATO, they're coming to a bit of a cross roads. The isolationists, libertarians, and extreme right of the US Republican party are clearly starting to question its legitimacy. So far as they're concerned an increasingly ungrateful rest of the world is hiding underneath an American umbrella and not contributing. They might very well start to retreat across the Atlantic and say "stuff you", or as I expect, "start to pay up if you want our protection". Obama might have given a recent commitment to NATO, but that could be reversed in a matter of a few years. NATO is for all intents and purposes a one man show with a series of cheerleaders

You should also be aware that Turkey is increasingly regarded as something of a rogue member. It's clearly sending to ISIS, and we now have this totally unsustainable situation where the USAF and RSAF share the same Turkish airbase, bombing in support and against the Kurds respectively. Even Josephy Heller would have been hard pressed to make this up

What if they enter Syria to stop the formation of a Kurdish state on their border. Is it so implausible that Turkey and Russia end up shooting at each other and we suddenly have article 5 invoked on us? At the moment I'd say it's not very likely, but neither is it impossible

So far at least Turkey isn't taking part in this big Saudi war game directly, but is allowing the RSAF to fly offensive missions into Syria from their bases (it took the Americans about 3 years to get permission, and only when Kobane was in the world spotlight did the finally agree). Saudi got theirs straight away. Does that not tell you something about the close level of co-operation between the two?

I realise twisting words is a habit of yours Clive, but I think it's important to underline again that this will be a some sort of Sunni super state with Saudi Arabia playing a very significant role in the direction it takes. It is not an extension of a greater Saudi Arabia. For all intents Saudi Arabia is likely to provide the all important spiritual lead, not least because Mecca and Medinah are on their soil. They also have shed loads of money that they've been happy to spend promoting Wahhabism, and have been buying up so much high quality military kit now, that they'd wipe the floor with any European airforce. I wouldn't under estimate the firepower that some of the emirate states have either. They fly F16's

It will be presented as a bloc of economic co-operation and regional police force in order to gain acceptance onto the international stage, but it will be exclusively or Sunni, and padded out by countries with strong allegiances to Saudi Arabia. I see no reason why such a bloc shouldn't emerge to be honest. There are plenty of comparable such blocs of common interest all over the globe, the only thing that makes this one unique is the role played by religion in formulating it

Now perhaps you can return to Kurdistan and let us look at how you might handle this very hot potato? In a few years time this could be a very serious issue, and could be a very important litmus test for Turkey and their future direction

update ... and in another nudge today towards a developing issue, Erdogan is telling the United States to decide who its supports, the Turks or the Kurds. Doesn't sound like someone desperate to ingratiate himself as he shells the US's principal ally on the ground, nor does it sound like he's going to lose too much sleep either. Why would he? He's demonstrated already that if he were forced to choose beyween the YPG and ISIS, he'd choose ISIS.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...n-idUSKCN0VQ1DP?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

 

[Warbler]

Another update on Turkey's love affair with the EU, on 16th February 100 MEP's signed a petition calling on the EU to remove the PKK from a list of terror groups. Is this the sort of thing that is designed to make Turkey wish to join?

http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/over-100-meps-call-upon-eu-to-remove-pkk-from-the-terrorist-list

On 17th February a large bomb goes off in Ankara. At the time of writing it isn't known who is responsible. Some reports say the explosive used is similar to that used by ISIS, others cite the fact that it was a military convoy targetted, which is more in keeping with the PKK as ISIS have tended to go for civilian targets

 

[Warbler]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUKKCN0VT0UN

800 IS fighters have been surrounded by the SAA, with no escape route (unless Turkey comes to the rescue)

The Turks have committed to step up their attacks on the YPG after blaming them for the bombing in Ankara this week, and challenged America to decide who they want to back.

The Russians have pretty well roped Assad in regarding a Kurdish enclave too, and told him they won't support his attempts to recapture it. In fact they went further and said it would end badly for him!

The Kurds however will almost certainly seek to apply the maxim of possession is nine tenths etc which in the absence of a Syrian/ Russian initiative to ensure that a Kurdish enclave doesn't become established passes the responsibility to the Turks to destroy it

Is America prepared to sit back and allow that to happen? Well the Kurdish enclave can't be supplied by sea, nor can it easily be supplied from the air. It'll be surrounded by hostile neighbours. The only way the American's could guarantee its security would be to garrison it. If they do, then the Turks have their answer, and that would be a major slap in the face for them. Possibly too much. You'd have the EU and the Americans sponsoring a hostile state on Turkey's sourthern border. You don't need to be a genius to see what type of reaction that would provoke

If its left to its own devices, the likelihood is that the Kurdish enclave would quickly become another Lebanon rather than an Israel. Sure the American's might try and broker a responsible government and seek to give the Turks assurances, but I doubt the Kurds would be able to control the activities of the PKK, YPG or TAK operating from within their borders

The American's might lose face, and might not like it, but they'll probably have to accept that a Kurdish enclave isn't part of the post Syria deal, and that they'll need to stab them in the back to maintain the peace. Ideally they'd probably have wanted the Syrians and Russians to destroy so that they could feign indignation and continue feeding that particular narrative, but Putin seems to have spotted this one coming

So America's most loyal allies on the ground (the YPG) are likely to fall victim to their NATO allies (Turkey) and that's provided that during the process of doing this, Turkey doesn't come into conflict with Syria, or worse still, Russia, triggering a potential article 5 petition to NATO

In fairness, I can't really see what option the American's have unless they want to drive the Turks into the arms of the middle east hothouse. The best fudge might be some kind of autonomous region in Iraq, but I doubt this would work. This is going to test John Kerry to the hilt.

 

[icebreaker]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUKKCN0VT0UN

So America's most loyal allies on the ground (the YPG) are likely to fall victim to their NATO allies (Turkey) and that's provided that during the process of doing this, Turkey doesn't come into conflict with Syria, or worse still, Russia, triggering a potential article 5 petition to NATO

But NATO this afternoon warned Turkey this afternoon that it will not come to aid Turkey if a conflict with Russia goes "hot" ?
And also said that Article 5 won't apply in this situation unless specifically Russia were to invade Turkish sovereign territory. It was a harsh rebuff to Turkey insinuating that Turkey is the stirrer of the current crisis and that NATO will not be drgged into a conflict by a bellicose Turkish administration.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...upport-conflict-Russia-tensions-escalate.html

 

[Warbler]

That's the correct position for NATO to adopt, but obviously plays into the scenario I was projecting further down the road, about the emergence of a Sunni super state/ bloc establishing itself through the region.

Operation Northern Thunder took place earlier this week. In terms of hardware, its a credible assembly.

Where does Turkey increasingly start to look for its future alliances? Rebuffed by the EU and slapped in the face by NATO? Turkey has become increasingly something of a rogue member, indeed, you might even go so far as to call them a danger. Have they run their useful course? If they haven't done so yet, are they on a direction of travel that will take them there unless they change course?

Does the scope for Russia to even join NATO emerge one day? It's a fluid time we're moving into. Russia is no friend of China as well as Islamists. As the Chinese start to expand in places like the Spratly Islands, and North Korea becomes a bit more menacing, the door potentially looks more open than ever. We might have a Commander in Chief with orange skin and yellow hair by then too!!!

 

[clivex]

No Im not twisting words.you drop that in because you have lost it . A Sunni superstate means one thing and one thing only. It's a ludicrous idea promoted surely by hard left conspiracy theorists who are obsessed with Saudi being the us allie in the region. All it illustrates is a paranoia about Saudi Arabia (a la Ken Livingstone who goes on and on and on about them to the extent he must surely be confusing them with Jews) and a total ignorance about the states that are supposedly on their radar


Doesnt occur for one minute that the people of turkey with its long secular tradition would be absolutely horrified of being under some sort of umberella led by the extremist Saudi sects? Unbelievable . I would love to see a Turkish poll. Eu or Saudi?

Mind you that would be democracy and the will of the people and we can't have that. There are those that "know what's best for everyone" of course


And now we are reading that the whole thing is a Saudi "war game" and they have been "meddling " for years

unlike the leftie losers heros Iran and Assad then? Jesus Christ

Anyone swallowing this stuff should have a good look at themselves. I think it's pretty clear that all the wars in the region are not some Saudi ( and no doubt by implication the evil USA ) construct .

i was reminded once again the other day that those who think clearly and have a true understanding of any issue are concise with their explanations. Just as when I meet a business owner who either waffles or has a clear grasp. This and otehr threads have become unreadable

 

[Warbler]

I would love to see a Turkish poll.

Would you? I doubt it, because you wouldn't like the findings. The most recent FWIW is as follows, (personally I don't believe polls mean that much to be honest), and especially in a country where a leader like Erdogan is more than happy to ride over them is as follows

Unfavourable/Favourable

Saudia Arabia = 53/26
European Union = 66/25
China = 68/21
Brazil = 65/20
NATO = 70/19
USA = 73/19
Russia = 73/16
Iran = 75/14
Israel 86/2

You might of course conclude that Turkey hates everyone, but Saudia Arabia generates the highest approval rating, and lowest disapproval rating. Do you want to explain that? This is only likely to have risen since it was surveyed (2014). It's difficult to see how the US bombing in support of the YPG, or Europe trying to get the PKK removed from a list of terror organisations has further endeared themselves to the Turks, whilst the Saudis have supported them?

You really are hopeless Clive, it's little wonder you keep stumbling into error after error. I note incidentally that you've failed to engage with the substance I laid down by way of challenge. Shame, this was an opportunity to impress us with your massive analytical brain. What's the issue? David Cameron hasn't given you a line to obediently parrot out, so you don't know what you're supposed to think yet? well in the absence of this lets fall back on Ken Livingstone then - yawn, anti American conspiracy theories - yawn - leftie this and that - yawn. You really are exhausting your own tedious repetoire. Any room for the Guardian and vile jew haters? What about Corbyn?

And yes, you do twist words with your pathetic straw man arguments, and world of continual conflict that totally blinds you to enter any meaningful analysis

Saudi Arabia has a well documented history of promoting Wahhabism around the world. If they'd kept it internally it might be less of a threat, that they seek to export to other countries does perhaps fit the description of "meddling". Perhaps you might be happy to turn a blind eye to it though, and call it the promotion of culture? I don't know?You need to wake up a bit Clive and stop apologising and making excuses for Saudi Arabia

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/638.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...he-quran-channel-4-banged-up-five-867474.html

http://annaqed.com/en/terrorism/saudi-arabia-wahhabism-and-the-spread-of-sunni-theofascism

http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/457137/EXPO-AFET_ET(2013)457137_EN.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter..._conservative_Sunni_Islam#.22Petro-dollars.22

I'm particularly interested to know what information you have access to that the US Secretary of State doesn't, which otherwise led her to conclude that Saudis are the biggest financiers of terrorism in the world? Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain why you're correct and Hillary Clinton is wrong?

"donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." She continues: "More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups." - Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State

"Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends... [and] the Saudis, the Emirates, etcetera. What were they doing?.... They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad -- except that the people who were being supplied, [they] were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world." - Joe Biden, US Vice President

"Anyone swallowing this stuff should have a good look at themselves." - Clivex , Internet commentator, and advocate of war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and anywhere else that becomes topical

 

[clivex]

You are a liar. I have never apologised for saudi. If you even bothered to read the posts you would know full well that I have done anything but

clearly i was suggesting that the last think the turks want is to become a satellite of saudi and???... well you are basically thick arent you?

Time waster.

 

[clivex]

Frankly I didn't "engage" with your speculation about Kurdistan because it was irrelevan at to the point and was simply a tool to try and divert from your laughable theories and secondly there is no point. I have no idea how it will play out and more importantly, nor do you.

Yes I will make the point about the hard left American haters and Saudi. Why not? It's what has driven your belief as it always does

turkey has 15m Shia. Which is a huge minority. Saudi can "export" whabisim but it has virtually no presence in turkey. Turkey is a nation first. Who the hell doesn't know that? Of all countries ...

Thats ts the end of it. You can count up f16 fighters and speculate all your like about wild theories over what state intends to do what but you do not know the countries you are talking about

or more importantly you think that states are nothing more than militaries and dictators. You despise democracy and the will of the people (Tunisia) so it is no surprise that you ignore the culture of the nations you pretend to understand

 

[clivex]

As an aside some more outright lies need to be countered

the Saudi government does NOT finance al queda. Why? Because al queda stated aim is to overthrow the Saudi government.

Now let's read that again...

it is almost certainly aware that Isis is an equal threat witn the same intentions

individuals from Saudi fnance terrorism. Individuals from USA financed the ira. Individuals in Sweden finance Isis. Invidiuals in the uk finance al queda

does that make the uk an al queda supporting nation or Sweden Isis allies

I think not

 

[Warbler]

I never expect you to engage with the substance Clive, why would you when you can simply make stuff up and believe it to be true. I'll challenge you to look at what Hillary Clinton said about it though in the diplomatic cables. It's all there. Naturally of course you know better than she does :lol:

 

[Warbler]

Frankly I didn't "engage" with your speculation about Kurdistan because it was irrelevan at to the point and was simply a tool to try and divert from your laughable theories and secondly there is no point. I have no idea how it will play out and more importantly, nor do you.

It's not actually, its very relevant, but I wouldn't expect someone who can't see beyond the end of their nose to recognise it. It's going to require some really skilled diplomacy to resolve

OK, I can accept that you "have no idea", you could perhaps have admitted that at the outset.

There's a clear path opening up that pushes the Turks into an ever closer union with a Sunni bloc, will they go that way?.

So your answer is that you don't know, and neither can anyone else if you don't. It actually has echoes of that period of calm we had from you as David Cameron performed his u-turn over Syria and all your arguments fell apart in the process, and you then told everyone else that they should stop speculating about it because none of us could possibly know if you didn't :lol: Obviously once Cameron gave you a new narrative to obediently follow you were off again.

FWIW Clive, I was pretty confident you wouldn't contribute anything by way of insight, because I know Cameron hasn't spoken on the issue of how to resolve the Kurdish issue post Syria, and armed with that, I was very confident you wouldn't have a view as you haven't been told yet what it is you're supposed to adopt.

Lets ask you a question though. Do you think that the UK should work towards establishing a permanent Kurdish presence in Syria?

Go on, you call me, and others "thick", here's your chance to impress the forum with an example of your own judgement and analysis

 

[clivex]

made what up? More lies. I think we best leave it at that

You are again showing how uninformed you really are. Idiots might be taken in by overlong drivel but it is seen for what it really is by most I suspect

clinton said that the state was not doing enough to stop the flow of funds . Not that the state was funding. Got it? Understand the difference. Does it need spelling out again????. Is that difficult to understand????

it is very debatable that any government anywhere can stop funding of terrorists. That is a perennial problem . USA and the ira???

 

[Warbler]

clinton said that the state was not doing enough to stop the flow of funds . Not that the state was funding. Got it? Understand the difference. Does it need spelling out again????. Is that difficult to understand????

Of course I understand that. You think that's acceptable do you? I don't

Do you just shrug your shoulders and say hey, Saudis will be Saudis, I suppose we ought to accept it? That sounds like an apologist to me.

And lets look at the scale of it Clive, this isn't a few AK47's and a bit of semtex is it? This is a regime that the US have identified as the single biggest source of terrorist funding in the world, and one who they have equally concluded aren't doing enough about it (a clear judgement in other other language)

Perhaps I should remind you of this quote. And also remind you that you agreed with it at the time. Have you changed you mind since?

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Do you think it should be ammended to read: "any antion that continues to harbor or support terrorism with whom we don't have trading interests and would prefer to turn a blind eye to"

 

[clivex]

It's not actually, its very relevant, but I wouldn't expect someone who can't see beyond the end of their nose to recognise it. It's going to require some really skilled diplomacy to resolve

OK, I can accept that you "have no idea", you could perhaps have admitted that at the outset.

There's a clear path opening up that pushes the Turks into an ever closer union with a Sunni bloc, will they go that way?.

So your answer is that you don't know, and neither can anyone else if you don't. It actually has echoes of that period of calm we had from you as David Cameron performed his u-turn over Syria and all your arguments fell apart in the process, and you then told everyone else that they should stop speculating about it because none of us could possibly know if you didn't :lol: Obviously once Cameron gave you a new narrative to obediently follow you were off again.

FWIW Clive, I was pretty confident you wouldn't contribute anything by way of insight, because I know Cameron hasn't spoken on the issue of how to resolve the Kurdish issue post Syria, and armed with that, I was very confident you wouldn't have a view as you haven't been told yet what it is you're supposed to adopt.

Lets ask you a question though. Do you think that the UK should work towards establishing a permanent Kurdish presence in Syria?

wrong again. Because if up to 20m largely Sunni Kurds break away (still unlikely ) then that leaves turkey with a. Population of between 50 and 60 million of whom 15 m will be shiites


again. No idea at all

turkey has also taken pride in its lack of conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. Something that is not exactly the case with Saudi is it? Where they crucify them ffs

so quite frankly let's just accept that your idea which was based on nothing more than assumptions about the evil intentions of a us ally are stone dead and ridiculous

 

[clivex]

Of course I understand that. You think that's acceptable do you? I don't

Do you just shrug your shoulders and sau hey, Saudis will be Saudis, what do we do about it? And lets look at the scale of it Clive, this isn't a few AK47's and a bit of semtex is it?

stupid comment. The fact remains that if someone wants to get funds to Isis, they can do so. It's happening in this country too. It is extremely difficult to stop.

 

[Warbler]

yes but you apply thresholds according to the severity of it don't you. Gun running a case of old rifles hardly constitutes the same threat as the industrial scale funding that comes out of Saudi Arabia

So when American policy is this - "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

and when the US Foreign Secretary identifies Saudi Arabia as follows

"donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

(I left the word donors in for integrity incidentally Clive, if I'd wanted to be selectively mischeivous I could have cut it out), but please look at what she says again and dwell on the severity of the language

"the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide"


This is pretty damning isn't it?
So there is a clear contravention of the position to "harbor or support". Now your apology that there isn't nothing we can do about this only holds true if they've really tried to address it (and other countries have been invaded and bombed for less) but Clinton notes


"it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".

"Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas (the name of the charity is redacted) and, at times, fund extremism overseas. In 2002, the Saudi government promised to set up a Charities Committee that would address this issue, but has yet to do so. The establishment of such a mechanism, however, is secondary to the primary U.S. goal of obtaining Saudi acknowledgement of the scope of this problem and a commitment to take decisive action".

 

[Warbler]

I shouldn't laugh

but it appears that having faced down the Pope, Donald Trump has turned his attention to Saudi funding of 9/11 in the last hour :lol: Specifically the redacted section of the House Senate report which has often been held to implicate them. It's actually building on a few things he's hinted at in interviews recently and has also been engaged in a few Twitter spats with members of their massive Royal family

 

[clivex]

Seemingly no understanding whatsoever between the difference between state funding of terrorism and individuals . Like so many others you want to pin individual actions on the state simply because Saudi is the lefts (and extreme right) obsession

there are more than enough unsavoury individuals in Saudi but frankly was the city of Boston entirely responsible for Noraid and the Birmingham pub bombings. I don't think so

this is so basic

I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out. The Saudi state was not going to fund an organisation who's first aim was to overthrow it. You have seemingly no concept of what bin ladens aims were . It's unbelievable

is that really difficult to understand ???

 

[Warbler]

That's the logic of an apologist.

28 pages of the 9/11 Senate Committee Report have been redacted. The lead author of the report was Sen Bob Graham who confirms that they “point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as the principal financier”

"the U.S. knows what they did, and when the U.S. government takes a position of passivity, or actively shuts down an inquiry, that sends a message to the Saudis. They have continued, maybe accelerated their support for the most extreme form of Islam,”

He went to conclude that both al Qaeda and ISIS are “a creation of Saudi Arabia.”

This isn't one man's obsession on a blog Clive. This is the lead author of the report who had access to all the material that the official channels would make available, and needed to carry his committee to make the claims he did. He's currently petitioning to have the 28 pages declassified along with Republicans

Jack Quinn (former laywer to the Clinton administration) is currently representing the families in a class action against Saudi Arabia (previously represented victims families over Lockerbie) filing a suit against the Libyan government, noted that the Senate Intelligence committee recently released a no holds barred report documenting US torture in the wake of the 9/11 attacks but continues to cover up for Saudi Arabia

“It’s rather bizarre that we would go to these great lengths to air this heretofore confidential information about how we reacted to 9/11, and at the same time we keep secret information about protecting those who helped launch the attack.”

For someone who was so hell bent on going to war with a country that had absolutely no direct or even indirect involvement with 9/11, you should be ashamed of the continued excuses you make for Saudi Arabia

Again I invite you to comment on the Bush doctrine, and remind you that you fully embraced it

"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Which bit don't you think applies to Saudi, and can you explain why you've so gleefully apllied selectively elsewhere to candidates who aren't remotely invovled?

The whole history of Saudi Arabia and their promotion, (and periodic crackdown) on Wahhibism, is they do the absolute minimum they think they can get away with - eventually - that's clearly born out in Hillary Clinton's communications. The problem stems from the massive Royal family, (the result of being able to have multiple wives) and therefore the sheer number of very wealthy Princes funding pet projects all over the world. We don't know the detail of the redacted pages, Senators have read them, and some have nuanced them. The interpretation is that the lower ranks of the Saudi state are implicated.

What you're describing Clive is a cyncial reworking of plausible denial (often used in diplomacy). One side puts up a poor excuse and the other agrees to observe it, as it's mutually convenient for both sides to do so to avoid embarrassment. Meanwhile thousands get killed for the effort

I should say (just to muddy the waters) that I do believe there are perhaps occasions where it is wise to let sleeping dogs lie, and not seek retribution that could lead to a reopening of hostilities (the peace process in NI might be a case in point) but I don't really see that the aggressive promotion of Wahhibism is actually in retreat and coming to any such accommodation

 

[Warbler]

Seemingly no understanding whatsoever between the difference between state funding of terrorism and individuals

You've got no understanding of the Saudi state, and the various hierarchies and factions within it (I don't know the detail either) but the structure is open to 1001 feuds and agendas as any monarchy tends to produce no shortage of plotters and sub plotters

If it were a purely private criminal enterprise as you're suggesting, don't you think that would have been particularly convenient for all concerned. So why cover up the evidence?

 

[clivex]

It doesn't change the fact that the rulers will not fund an organisation that seeks to overthrow them ffs

Oswald Moseley was an mp once. We have a shadow chancellor who has almost certainly contributed financially to the ira .

Neither represented or will represent the state