Saudi Prince promises 32 BILLION for the Islamization of America!

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Willtell
The Saudi version of Islam Wahhabi/Salafi will never take hold in America…Thank God

Agreed. Imagine the Japanese and Germans, allied during the second world war, merging their religions.

There are no allies in the board game of Risk, just 'Frenemies'.

Forgetting the 32 billion while we pat ourselves on the back, gentlemen??

32 Billion buys a lot of lawyers, lobbyists, political support, Mosques.... even weapons. Of course, the direction we are going already suggests a fair amount has already been 'invested' with that goal in mind.

Personally, the Saudi 'version', as you qualify it, or any version....thank God...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Right off the top, I qualify this as potential hype. I pose this thread under the assumption it is not hype and at the least a potential in the future or indicative of over-all Islamic intention.

www.nowtheendbegins.com...

Again, assuming it's accurate or potentially so, I pose these concepts to you.

Trump is spot on?

A religious war, read that cultural as much as religious, is occurring and completely valid to be treated as such by our political leaders on both sides of the aisle?

One could never really separate religion from culture no matter the attempts by the secular humanists?

Time to address Saudi Arabia? (With a new president...

) Be that addressing economic/military. Also despite the inevitable protestations of the oil addicted EU?

Thoughts?

If it was that easy, the pope would have bought the middle East already. Also, thanks for passing the bait along.

a reply to: nwtrucker

What I meant to imply tis, that while apparently currently allied in the military, financial and conquest for territory and resources game, its only a temporary alliance, one that will become a fight for domination between 'allies' at the end.

Just like the game of Risk. At the end, there can only be ONE. Any apparent alliance now is for show purposes only. My example was Nazi Germany and Empirical Japan during WWII.

Purely show and tell for the masses. Obviously…

a reply to: nwtrucker

All men are created equal
Well, i will give you the ignorance award for thinking like them. They held "men" were created equal, kept slaves and repressed womens equal rights.

So slavery and women's rights, apparently like the Kingdom of Saud, are alright with you, then?

Careful, you may step in your own ink.

BTW, I suggest a parallel with other empires in history, (the empire state building aside) all empires believe in "treating other nations any way they like". The Third Reich is just a most recent example I use because it is documented in film and archives.

All empirical thinking follows the same logic.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Umm $32B is what they're reporting his net worth at. How'd it turn into your title of "Saudi Prince promises 32 BILLION for the Islamization of America!"?

Trump and the Prince are feuding is all.

Trump hits back at 'dopey' Saudi billionaire

And in the WWIII forum no less. Geez get a grip.

The source for this article is Pam Geller the Islamophobe queen. So as usual it's just a load of BS.

Yeah well there B.

There is absolutely NOT a damn thing wrong with being a Saudiphobe.

The creator of AQ,ISIS, and ever other Wahhabist sunni terrorist organization around the world.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

All men are created equal
Well, i will give you the ignorance award for thinking like them. They held "men" were created equal, kept slaves and repressed womens equal rights.

So slavery and women's rights, apparently like the Kingdom of Saud, are alright with you, then?

Careful, you may step in your own ink.

BTW, I suggest a parallel with other empires in history, (the empire state building aside) all empires believe in "treating other nations any way they like". The Third Reich is just a most recent example I use because it is documented in film and archives.

All empirical thinking follows the same logic.


We have/had a moral code for the treatment of others. Largely labelled the Judeo-Christian. It was not part of the Constitution, but was a fundamental that underscored the Constitution.

We treat other nations as we deem fair or reasonable, as WE see fit. Based on that code/upbringing or not.

No different than any other country. We are not bound, by Constitution, or moral code to treat any other nation in a specific fashion.

As far as your obviously ridiculous comment about that Saudi treatment of their citizens is acceptable is nothing but spin. Obviously, I don't support those people and was pointing out the virtual idiocy of applying the Constitution as an argument that we can't judge, opine and defend against a specific group in a religion who seeks to undermine our culture and traditions.

It seems more like it is YOU who would let these issues slide. Careful that you don't step on your own toes....

a reply to: nwtrucker

The thread is about a Saudi prince who , apparently, would invest 32 Billion to alter the U.S. and/or the west into an Islamic environment.

You twist it into a "what we can and cannot do", Constitutionally, about that and put any that would counter it into a Nazi label.

You fall back onto "we are all created equal" as if that has anything to do with the current situation. Irrelevant, not germane and arguable as to whether it is even a truth. The Constitution may 'hold' that as a 'self-evident truth'. It may, in fact, not be so self-evident.

So let's see if you can return to the thread's topic rather than semantically twist the intent for no other purpose than avoid the subject.

32 Billion, if true, and I stress IF TRUE. Is this acceptable to you? Do you support it, the Saudis and their culture/faith?

Would you see that happening in the U.S.? Even incrementally, some 'lite' version of Islam becoming the dominant cultural force in the U.S.?

What do you really think about this subject? Speak now, or forever hold your peace....

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
personally i feel we should invade Saudi arabia. dispose their govt and leaders and make it a banana republic for usa oil. take out the middle men altogether (the saudies) and send them all back to living as nomads in tents in the desert where they belong, or at least until they get out of the middle ages.

their riches, their "KINGDOM" is all bs propt up by an army of westerners, without whome they couldn't even get a toilet to flush properly. they wanna spread wasabi, whabbi'ism or whatever do it from their wandering tents.

time to cut them from their gravy train of monthly stipends given to them for the oil they don't even know how to harvest from the western world.

ie get in where you fit in, and if you can't this jdam can help. takeout the middle man and give the oil money directly to western interests. to hell with Saudi arabia.

Agreed 100% ..I've always wondered why the hell such psychopaths are supported so badly by Washington...when they can easily be taken out!
Would love to see the corrupt bastards run for their lives wearing their ugly pajamas and porn glasses..

a reply to: nwtrucker

Actually no, the EU is the main market of Russia, Asia is the main market for the middle east.
That does not mean however that the gulf states don't want to enter and get a share of the european market, they do, hence the Turkey/Qatar pipeline.
But this pipeline must go through Syria so i think this is the answer to Turkey and the gulf states who want Assad gone and why Putin backs Assad despite the atrocities against his own people.
He'll want to preserve his market in Europe.

With the oil price below $50 shale oil is too expensive to win, so my take on this is that many oil companies in the US are in the red and laying off many workers while oil is being imported.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes i understand, to be honest, i see troubling signs in the reactions towards muslims in the US, as if they are the jews in Germany before the war.

What this Saudi prince has to sell is not Islam


it's a 18th century death cult known as Wahhabi Islam...It is NOT traditional Islam.


The only reason it has spread is through Saudi oil wealth.

Its a very violent, sectarian, HATE ALL OTHER RELIIGONS, doctrine and is the 100 percent source of terrorism.

ONLY Wahhabis are in jail for terrorism activities

The two recent killers in California were Wahhabis

ALL the terrorists are Wahhabis.

You won't find any non Wahhabi terrorists.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: nwtrucker

Actually no, the EU is the main market of Russia, Asia is the main market for the middle east.
That does not mean however that the gulf states don't want to enter and get a share of the european market, they do, hence the Turkey/Qatar pipeline.
But this pipeline must go through Syria so i think this is the answer to Turkey and the gulf states who want Assad gone and why Putin backs Assad despite the atrocities against his own people.
He'll want to preserve his market in Europe.

With the oil price below $50 shale oil is too expensive to win, so my take on this is that many oil companies in the US are in the red and laying off many workers while oil is being imported.

I looked up the volume of oil/gas imports to the EU and Russia is the number one 'nation' at around 35-37%.

That leaves a lot for the ME-as a region, not on a national count- I'm betting the Southern European nations are traditionally more connected to the ME supply.

I'm sure the big U.S. oil companies are losing money. I'd also bet that many of the small operations that make up the majority of Fracking are still making money, even at these levels. A lot of those holes were 'dry'...

I see your point on Putin and Syria. Although wouldn't Assad want that pipeline to go through? Mucho Dinero involved for him in that project.

Wait a minute. Perhaps I missed it among all the responses, but nobody seems to have commented on the fact that the subject of the article, Alaweed bin Talal, is the second largest share-holder in Fox News. Rupert Murdoch is the largest. In my opinion, that should make Fox News fans question their loyalty to the station. The Saudi royal family actively promote Alawitism, one of the most virulent and repressive forms of Islam, but ironically Fox viewers are in fact helping to fuel it by supporting the network and giving money to bin Talal.

a reply to: nwtrucker

We have/had a moral code for the treatment of others. Largely labelled the Judeo-Christian. It was not part of the Constitution, but was a fundamental that underscored the Constitution.

Actually they warned about organized religion, too. It was considered very dangerous. Thats why the separation of church and state. They remembered what it was like living under the combined authority of Kings and Popes. The inquisition, witch burnings, charges of Heresy and torture in the most brutal fashion.

Another reason they left Europe.

But I agree, their moral code of ethics is what we have lost. It says treat everyone equally, and that means fairly. Can't hold a double standard up to the world, loses credibility.

Yes, heres some democracy like we have at home and then bomb the S*** out of them.

originally posted by: Ianpvr
Wait a minute. Perhaps I missed it among all the responses, but nobody seems to have commented on the fact that the subject of the article, Alaweed bin Talal, is the second largest share-holder in Fox News. Rupert Murdoch is the largest. In my opinion, that should make Fox News fans question their loyalty to the station. The Saudi royal family actively promote Alawitism, one of the most virulent and repressive forms of Islam, but ironically Fox viewers are in fact helping to fuel it by supporting the network and giving money to bin Talal.

What pure Bull.

I dislike Starbucks politics. I like their coffee, oh well. He is, at best, a minority shareholder. One doesn't measure their support based on who owns shares in an outfit.

He bought Trump's casino, as well, and that didn't stop Trump from articulating what he thought was best for U.S. to wit suspend Muslim immigration until vetting is assured.

That 'Prince' has the right to buys offered shares and ownership anywhere and anytime he wants. He has the right to donate his money any way he wants.

We have the right to counter it...and Saudi Arabia..

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I dislike Starbucks politics. I like their coffee, oh well.

^This is the crux of it all. Lack of moral backbone and willingness to support by proxy while getting indignent and being an internet warrior.

For shame.

a reply to: intrptr

Where do you get the idea one should 'treat' everyone equally? That is almost....insane...I can't think of a better word.

I treat different people differently. Their worth, to me and mine, are also different. They get different consideration and treatment.

I suppose by your logic, we should treat...oh, lets say Iceland the same as Saudi Arabia as, of course, they are 'equal' and it's only 'fair' they get the same treatment.

What utter idiocy.

As far as SA goes, it would hard to say we haven't been 'fair' or haven't put up with more than we should have.

Keep your 'equal and fair' spin for those that buy into it. More avoidance of the subject.

Once again what would you do about this situation? For once, stop dissembling...

originally posted by: NowWhat
I think we should send him the invoice.
We can all say we're muslim now.
If we split the cash evenly between all Americans, we each get a check for $106.62.

I say we do it and cash in!

I hate to be cynical, but I'm pretty sure whatever wasn't stolen by the politicians, would all go into paying off the National debt.

this will never happen....
unless the deal is sponsored by Google and McDonalds

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I dislike Starbucks politics. I like their coffee, oh well.

^This is the crux of it all. Lack of moral backbone and willingness to support by proxy while getting indignent and being an internet warrior.

For shame.

I know....I'm addicted....