It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ashdown urges UK to pressure Saudi Arabia over jihadist funds

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 06:42 AM

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Revolution9

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Revolution9

We got more than enough oil in the falklands. We just need to stops pussy footing around the Argies and tell them to go shove it.

Yes I just read up quickly on this.

Now I see why Argentina were so willing to go to war over the Islands. Obviously huge natural resources potential wealth is there. Hence, why the Brits are so keen. Wow, what a horrid little back stabbing world this is.

Oil is the Devil's libation (damn that is a good phrase I think I'll copyright that

To be fair back in 1983 no one knew how extensive the oil fields were down there.

Your statement here is not accurate.

"The search for oil around the Falkland Islands began in the early 1970s, when rudimentary surveys identified tentative signs that oil may be locked under the seas around the islands, which lie 8,000 miles from the British mainland."

By the early 80s they knew alright. They just kept their mercenary motives quiet and pretended they were doing it for the Falkland peeps. I am sure by then Argentina and Britain knew. It was an oil war I am quite positive now even with what little I have read up to now. Haha, it all fits together now.

"Race is on to tap 1bn barrels of oil in the Falkland Islands

British oil companies are leading the quest to find oil around the Falklands despite threats by Argentina" (from source article).

A BIG PS: I had to do your home work for you. It was you who raised this in the thread and left all the home work to me. Also, you are trying to say innocent little Britain did not enter that war mainly over natural resources and was all cosily humanitarian to free a few yokel villagers. The press evidence here clearly tells me by the 1980s both Britain and Argentina knew and had a squabble about it. Mean while the U.S did not back Britain because they had their eyes on it as there might be a way of messing with Argentina like they do other South American countries for natural resources. No chance getting it off the Brits, but little Argentina, much easier.

"How the U.S. Almost Betrayed Britain

Alexander Haig wanted Reagan to side with the Argentines over the Falklands, newly released papers show".


The exploitation of natural resources in Latin American countries has become one of the most controversial issues of contemporary development. Three positions arise: 1) a position that opens the development of natural resources to foreign priorities and capitals; 2) a position that opposes any kind of development if it is not conducted by the state, even if the state lacks the financial resources to do so; and 3) a position that sees advantages in negotiating the development of resources with external partnership but reserves for the state the determination of priorities and the leading role in the exploitation. The third position assumes the existence of a responsible government commited to safeguarding national interests. Unfortunately, this last assumption is not very operative with Latin American governments which seldom have standing policies concerning natural resources, which leaves them open to assaults from private national and international interests.

Contrary to opposite views, it has been demonstrated that the development of natural resources brings about stimulation of regional economies and relocation of populations toward resource frontiers. Opposing the development of such areas of resources is to negate the concept of progress and to deepen chronic poverty."

I said that I don't use oil because it is the same colour as blood. I said oil is the Devil's libation. After supplying this information do you think I am being unfair? Bah! Humbug! 2nd time I had to use that today.

Whether it be Saudi Arabia or Falklands it is the same. That is because we are talking about natural resources and nations will go to war and hold unholy allegiances and alliances for natural resources. Or is everything just nice, polite and all mutually assured wealth creation?

Exploitation is still rife in this back stabbing world. None of my metaphors are too strong. They are not strong enough. They are muted and polite when one considers how cynical, violent and exploitive foreign relations are between nations; the bigger ones calling the shots and quite literally exploiting the smaller and weaker ones, keeping them weak and dependent.
edit on 24-11-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 07:16 AM
a reply to: Revolution9

The UK offered Argentina a full and equal partnership in the development of oil fields in the South Atlantic region around The Falkland Islands.
The UK had no moral or legal obligation to do so.
The UK even offered to fund the building of a large oil refinery on the Argentine mainland.

Such a partnership had the potential to provide a massive boost to the Argentine economy, an economy that is failing badly.

Kirchner turned down this offer.

She allowed her ego and desire to be seen and heard on the international stage to take precedence over the interests and well being of the ordinary Argentinian people.

But that's not really the purpose of this thread and hopefully we can now continue to discuss how the UK government continually panders to the Saudi Royal Family and refuses to acknowledge and condemn their dreadful record on human rights and their complicity in establishing IS in the first place.

IS obtained its initial funding and spiritual inspiration from Wahhabi's within Saudi Arabia and it continues to obtain much of its funding to this day from these self-same sources.

Saudi Arabia is a kingdom built on double standards and hypocrisy and 'our' continued support of it is a national disgrace.

Our support of Saudi's military intervention in Yemen - yet another dispute whose origins lie in Sunni / Shia sectarianism - is morally indefensible.

Things in Saudi Arabia are pretty fragile. Outwardly it may appear stable but there is currently a power struggle going on between the Saud family and its supporters and Wahhabi extremists who feel the time may be approaching when they can achieve political power to go along with the spiritual control it has enjoyed since the nations establishment.

Paddy Ashdown is one of the very politicians who I think has maintained a high level of integrity over a relatively long period.
He tends to speak from an informed and well judged perspective - we should heed his words.

edit on 24/11/15 by Freeborn because: clarity

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 07:32 AM
a reply to: crazyewok

Could not agree more with the thought in your OP. Those that fund them should be stopped and arrested for supporting terrorism.

Saudi seems pretty untouchable in the west they are our allies and we rarely condemn there actions.

If they where not given money and they where not allowed to sell their oil we would not be in this mess.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 08:08 AM
a reply to: crazyewok

Have you watched the BBC documentary "Bitter Lake"? It identifies how and why the UK (and West in general) is all buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia. It was quite the eye opener for me. Basically there is no reason to trust western leadership which is allies with Saudi Arabia.

Youtube has a version but I can never seem to get the audio to work for this video on it.

Here it is on dailymotion

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:41 AM
a reply to: Sparkymedic

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in