It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

WAR: Over 40 Percent of Iraqi Suicide Bombers Are Saudi

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


Should we declare war against Russia for arming both Iraq and now Iran against the US?

Is it not also double standard when we know that some of the countries who profess they are our allies are also helping Islamic extremist countries who have professed their hatred towards the US and whose sole purpose for arming themselves is to defy and fight the US?


We know Putin is two-faced, quietly allowing proliferation to terrorist nations, yet domestically wiping out the Chechens when it fits his agenda. But there wasn't any Russians hijacking planes on 9/11.




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vajrayana
We know Putin is two-faced, quietly allowing proliferation to terrorist nations, yet domestically wiping out the Chechens when it fits his agenda. But there wasn't any Russians hijacking planes on 9/11.


I could come up with the same response some other members made in this same thread. We are fighting against terrorism and countries that are proliferating terrorism against the west, so why leave out Russia when they are presently arming Iran against the US?

Saudi Arabia is a hotbed for terrorists, i am not denying this, and it seems that the house of saudi is trying to keep both the US and the terrorists that live in their country happy. If the house of saudi falls, that country will completly become a terrorist haven, and they will unite with other Islamic countries in their jihad against the west.

It would be suicidal to attack the house of saudi. Iraq was another matter, Saddam was openly defying UN sanctions as he was arming Iraq once again with banned technology and materials, he had in many instances professed his hatred for the US and was actively financing terrorists against the US.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I wasn't for the Iraq invasion, but I am pleased that Saddam is incapacitated after all the effort & toll. If this is the indirect strategy of bottling the other evil genies than so be it.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vajrayana
I wasn't for the Iraq invasion, but I am pleased that Saddam is incapacitated after all the effort & toll. If this is the indirect strategy of bottling the other evil genies than so be it.


Vajrayana, the US cannot be in a global war with every country at the same time. The US, like any other country, finds compromise with those countries that are willing to work with the US.

Or would you rather truly have a global conflict in which the US and allies attack every country that in one way or another have a double standard against the US and other western allies?



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Vajrayana, the US cannot be in a global war with every country at the same time. The US, like any other country, finds compromise with those countries that are willing to work with the US.

Or would you rather truly have a global conflict in which the US and allies attack every country that in one way or another have a double standard against the US and other western allies?


I'm not for armageddon. Not being a Monday morning quarterback or armchair general , after 9/11 i hoped we would have conducted a full scale invasion of Afghanistan, that means not just eliminating Taleban & Al Qaida strongholds & centers of operation, but conducting thorough seek & destroy missions throughout the tribal regions for any retreating remnants, not tiptoeing around them concerned about offending tribal sensitivities if they were indeed harboring scum, when pursuit lead to the Pakistani border, we should of demanded Musharraf hand over Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad & A Q Khan or face invasion as well. I doubt they would've pissed off a determined dragon with their limited arsenal. With Khan's network frozen, we could have traced the extent of it's proliferation and took measures against the recipients. If Saddam tried to interfere in our Al-Qaida hunt, he was next.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by Vajrayana]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vajrayana
I'm not for armageddon. Not being a Monday morning quarterback or armchair general , after 9/11 i hoped we would have conducted a full scale invasion of Afghanistan, that means not just eliminating Taleban & Al Qaida strongholds & centers of operation, but conducting thorough seek & destroy missions throughout the tribal regions for any retreating remnants, not tiptoeing around them concerned about offending tribal sensitivities if they were indeed harboring scum, when pursuit lead to the Pakistani border, we should of demanded Musharraf hand over Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad & A Q Khan or face invasion as well. I doubt they would've pissed off a determined dragon with their limited arsenal. With Khan's network frozen, we could have traced the extent of it's proliferation and took measures against the recipients. If Saddam tried to interfere in our Al-Qaida hunt, he was next.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by Vajrayana]


Well if you are so certain of all of the above, and you somehow have more intelligence sources than the US intelligence agencies, then you should be running as head of the CIA , NSA, or any of the other three lettered agencies.

I, on the other hand, know full well that I, or anyone else in these forums, do not know all the information, nor do any of us know all the reasons why we are fighting the war on terror in this manner.

Does the US government keeps secrets?, hell yeah, just like any other government in the world. Does the US government makes all information available to the public? no, and the US government never should, because then everyone, from friends to enemies will have this information and the sources of such information, which will compromise double agents, and spies. Not to mention that all the resources and time that was spent to keep these secret would have gone to waste.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
As pointed out in this recent article here, your analysis of the article you posted is not accurate. While suicide bombers are mostly foreign fighters they only make up 5% of the insurgency.

And I quote from the article I linked to above:


While foreign fighters make up only around five percent of the overall insurgency, they are causing disproportionate damage with suicide attacks, the officer said.





The bombers are part of a complex, loosely connected insurgency that also includes former members of Saddam's Baath Party, Sunni Arab nationalists and Iraqis tied to the fighting by tribal, family and personal connections.


I agree US/Iraqi forces should crack down on the border in Iraq to stop foreign fighters from entering the country. However even if they successfully removed all of the foreign fighters you would still be left with 95% of the insurgents in Iraq which is made up of Iraqis.



[edit on 3-6-2005 by Delta 38]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Muaddib, why do you insist on insulting people? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Any way I digress

You mentioned that Iraq was invaded becaus Saddam broke UN sanction and was arming himself with banned weapons. Fine. Bush knew in 2002 that the North Koreans were building nuclear weapons, he knew this before he launched his invasion of Iraq. Why did he choose to topple Saddam instead of Kim Jong Il? Wasnt the obvious threat of nuclear weapons greater from North Korea than from Iraq?

Also the Taliban in Afghanistan were said that they should be removed for allowing terrorists to train and recruit in their country and for their harsh islamic law and ill treatment of women. How is that any different to what Saudi Arabia are doing? Women cant even drive a car in Saudi Arabia. People have their hands chopped off for stealing and beheadings occur frequently.

Why no attack against Saudi Arabia again? Money?

Why didnt the American government ask the Taliban nicely to put pressure on the terrorists in their country like Bush does to Saudi Arabia. Why invade Afghanistan? Why? Because Bush didnt have any business interests with them and the Taliban dont pump billions of dollars into the U.S economy. Quite the contrary actually, Afghanistan's Taliban were sitting in the way of a gas pipeline that Unocal wanted to develop there.

Bush invades Afghanistan without allowing the Taliban to even attempt to remove the terrorists. Bush installs an ex-Unocal employee, Hamid Karzai, as President of Afghanistan and low and behold one of the first orders of business is this gas pipelines approval.

Muaddib if this war on terror was actually about saving American lives and stopping the spread of WMDs the first two countries that the United States would of invaded would of been Saudi Arabia #1 and then North Korea.

The money says different though.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Muaddib, why do you insist on insulting people? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Any way I digress


Where did i insult her?....

What i said is true, noone in here, unless they have the highest security clearance in the country and even then I don't think they would know everything, knows all the information or all the reason why the US is doing things this way.


Originally posted by subz
You mentioned that Iraq was invaded becaus Saddam broke UN sanction and was arming himself with banned weapons. Fine. Bush knew in 2002 that the North Koreans were building nuclear weapons, he knew this before he launched his invasion of Iraq. Why did he choose to topple Saddam instead of Kim Jong Il? Wasnt the obvious threat of nuclear weapons greater from North Korea than from Iraq?


Do you forget that Saddam was actively helping terrorists against the US? Saddam even mentioned it publicly..and even our kgb/kremlim/Russian mafia "friends" were providing evidence since at least 911 and up to the start of the war that this was true.


Originally posted by subz
Also the Taliban in Afghanistan were said that they should be removed for allowing terrorists to train and recruit in their country and for their harsh islamic law and ill treatment of women. How is that any different to what Saudi Arabia are doing? Women cant even drive a car in Saudi Arabia. People have their hands chopped off for stealing and beheadings occur frequently.

Why no attack against Saudi Arabia again? Money?

Why didnt the American government ask the Taliban nicely to put pressure on the terrorists in their country like Bush does to Saudi Arabia. Why invade Afghanistan? Why? Because Bush didnt have any business interests with them and the Taliban dont pump billions of dollars into the U.S economy. Quite the contrary actually, Afghanistan's Taliban were sitting in the way of a gas pipeline that Unocal wanted to develop there.

Bush invades Afghanistan without allowing the Taliban to even attempt to remove the terrorists. Bush installs an ex-Unocal employee, Hamid Karzai, as President of Afghanistan and low and behold one of the first orders of business is this gas pipelines approval.


You are kidding right? Do you know what the taliban is? or was? Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden have/had very close ties with the Taliban.

I am not going to cover what the Taliban actually did to Afghanistan, which made the country worse than it was before they took power, nor how they implemented Sharia law in it's worse manner...but here is an excerpt as to the reason why attack Afghanistan/Taleban, and not Saudi Arabia.


The Taliban against the world


The Taliban regime faced international scrutiny and condemnation for its policies. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S., Saudi Arabia and the UAE cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban.

The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial.


Excerpted from.
www.infoplease.com...




Originally posted by subz
Muaddib if this war on terror was actually about saving American lives and stopping the spread of WMDs the first two countries that the United States would of invaded would of been Saudi Arabia #1 and then North Korea.

The money says different though.


Not really. First off the Afghanistan government was extremely supportive of terrorists, and as you can see by the excerpt above, it has/had very close ties to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

Let's read a bit more about the Taliban.


The Taliban recognized the need for international ties but wavered between cooperation—they claimed to have drastically cut opium production in July 2000—and defiance—they pointedly ignored international pleas not to destroy the 2000-year-old Buddhist statues of Bamian. However, they made no effort to curb terrorist activity within Afghanistan, a policy that ultimately led to their undoing.


Excerpted from.
www.infoplease.com...

Saudi Arabia, althou slowly, has been embracing many of the ways of the west, they are more open towards the US, even thou they do have a double standard, because they know they can't take all extremists living in their country at once. They have in many occasions denounced and arrested terrorists in their country also.


Terror suspect seized in Saudi Arabia
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, May 11 (UPI) -- Saudi security forces seized a terror suspect who has been on the run since December in the northern province of Zalfi, reports said Wednesday.


Excerpted from.
www.sciencedaily.com...



Saudi Arabia announces terror arrests
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi officials arrested an al-Qaeda figure suspected of masterminding the Riyadh bombings, a newspaper reported Wednesday, and the U.S. ambassador warned that militant cells are likely still plotting attacks in the kingdom.


Excerpted from.
www.usatoday.com...

One article is from 2003, the other from 2005.


[edit on 3-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
well seem like all this 40% SAUDIS suicide bombers are really loyal to SADDAM ehssss



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian.

The Wahabi sect of Islam permeates Saudi Society.

Why are we stunned at the predominating Saudi portion of these suicide bombers?

On the bright side.... that's some Saudi manpower that cannot now be re-used.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Where did i insult her?....



Originally posted by Muaddib
Well if you are so certain of all of the above, and you somehow have more intelligence sources than the US intelligence agencies, then you should be running as head of the CIA , NSA, or any of the other three lettered agencies.

I find that condescending and insulting. Maybe im just over sensitive. If she didnt find it offensive then who am I to comment. Ignore me there.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
WAR: Over 40 Percent of Iraqi Suicide Bombers Are Saudi

Anyone else get the 'Imperial March' in their heads when they looked at that???

A "martyrs" list on a Zarqawi web site found that only 10 percent of the bombers were born in Iraq

I have to wonder just how accurate these sorts of things are. I mean, ATS could be used to get 'information' about jihadis, considering that we have a number of posters who claim to be invovled in one way or another.


curme
Anything from the NY Post is suspect

Indeed, The Post is a 'rag paper', but it seems like the story is legit. I think whats really questionable is using a 'zarqawi website' to figure this stuff out tho.


FredT
The House of Saud is really ripe for a fall.

You do realize, however, that that family is the only thing holding the real horros at bay? Perhaps we can talk about how they, to a good extend, created the problem in the first place. But removing them, and creating a vaccum in Saudi Arabia, would, I fear, be far more devastating that allowing them to continue. Granted, if a puppet government could replace it, that'd be something, but this is definitly a case of 'the danger we know' being better than the danger we don't. ALso, the Sauds might be more malleable if there is movement on palestine, and adequate democracy in lebanon and Iraq, especially if this has effects in syria, and we've already seen that there are somewhat democratizing reforms in Egypt.

Then again, the royals destroyed an attempt to have a constiutional monarchy, so perhaps they are simply too stupid to adapt to the situation. I mean, hell, even the english royals went along with it when the jig was up, and they're still around to this day.


Of course, we should also keep in mind that, while the Saud family rules at the 'approval' of the clerics, and mostly the wahabbist clerics, the family itself isn't so caught up in that sort of thing. When it came to power, it used a militant tribe/group called the Ikhwan, who were wahhabists, to seize control and destroy the opposition. Then, realizing that they were religious radicals and thus dangerous, they, the sauds, destroyed the ikhwan. After that, they started to rely on the clerics directly, and that is why the wahhabist religion holds such sway there. So the sauds aren't crazy, but I think that in this case they are being foolish. If the goverment were a constitional monarchy, they they'd've gotten ride of the power of the clerics, and simply have to deal with 'the people', who are far easier to control, especially when the only thing the sauds want is the money to maintain their Regal lifestyle and their Rank.


topsecretbomb
i dont see how some of the bombers could be french?

They're talking about muslims, often who immigrated to france, who have now moved to the middle east and are participating in the insurgency. And remember, algeria used to be a french colony.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Gee, does this surprise anyone?????????????????????????

Have I not been telling you for the past couple years the Saudis hold daggers to our backs as they smile at us and call us freinds?

I told you they are the funders and producers of most of the world's terrorists. I knew that long before 9/11.

Sleeping with the devil. How appropriate.






posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian. The Wahabi sect of Islam permeates Saudi Society.
Why are we stunned at the predominating Saudi portion of these suicide bombers?
On the bright side.... that's some Saudi manpower that cannot now be re-used.


See what I posted previously:
Are all the Arabs in Saudi Arabia considered themselves as Saudis or Arabs? The Saudi moniker is applied to those who identified with the vast family of the House of Saud or who is more or less related to the family, whose numbers are around 60,000! The rest of the Arabs living as citizens in the Kingdom aren't related to the Saudi family, so we can't possibly keep assuming that all Arabs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are Saudis. That's like saying that you are known as a Smithian if your country is ruled by King Smith and the House of Smith, even though you aren't related to the Smith family by name.

The real key to identify the difference between the Saudi Arabs and the rest of the Arabs in the Kingdom is look at their full name and their relation to which family or tribe they belong to. There are some families who are under this powerful family/tribe who is more or less related to the Saudi family by blood or by legal/religious boundary.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
And your semantics on what constitutes the moniker "Saudi" is in aid of what exactly? Trying to deflect criticism from your buddies the Saudis? Youre not a Bush are you?

Last time I checked, we take the name of our nationality from the country we are born in/citizen of. When I say im British that doesnt mean I have to necessarily be a member of the British royal family does it?

If this country was called Windsor and I called myself a Windsor because im from this country that would be acceptable. Just because the egalitarian Saudi family named their country after themselves doesnt mean that all who live there cannot take their nationality from their countries official name.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join