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.

 

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
The interesting thing to emerge from this is not obvious, but is pretty damn amusing to me.

One of the arguments the writer of the movie "Loose Change" tried to make was that the stories surrounding the hijackers couldn't be the real truth because they were reported to have drank in bars, visited bush clubs, and caroused before 9/11. As they were Saudis and Muslims, this would "fly in the face of their culture" to have done this.

Ah yeah...


You have to love it when people take a homerun cut at a gopher ball.




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
This happened in London a little while back...........

Saudi prince found guilty of murdering servant in hotel

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Muslim spokespersons claim moral purity in their fight against ‘decadent’ Westerners. Indeed, if Muslims were told an infidel man forced himself onto a 9-year old girl they would quickly condemn such a man as a pedophile, and then he would be lynched. But mention the Prophet Mohammed slept with a girl of the same age, and watch Muslims overact with all kinds of rationalizations such as girls in those days matured fast or it was normal and acceptable in that culture, etc.

Can hypocrisy get any worse than this?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 


In rich muslim Arab families, their royalty/oil sheiks etc. it is a cultural thing apparently, to have a man-slave...there's words in the arabic language just for said man-slave, which in turn makes me wonder about the morals the people take over from their supposed leaders, who also flagship their muslim tradition(which in turn shows you that the people with power fake their faith and use it as a tool of control over the masses- hence the need to distance oneself from organized religion).

reply to post by ColonelSF
 




Muslim spokespersons claim moral purity in their fight against ‘decadent’ Westerners


Read the bold part above



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
this should not offend anyone. the only difference between you doing it and someone with proper heritage is the way you react.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zamini
makes me wonder about the morals the people take over from their supposed leaders, who also flagship their muslim tradition(which in turn shows you that the people with power fake their faith and use it as a tool of control over the masses- hence the need to distance oneself from organized religion).

Totally agree with you! It's all about wielding power. But isn't it both intriguing and amazing that a few Mullahs are able to control the psyche of so many? And then, how is it that so many get brainwashed? Aren't they capable of independent logical reasoning? Or is it in the genes?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by theendisnear69
((snip))

Why is it that we allow the biggest hypocrites, and probably some of the most evil people, to control our world?


Nationalism, patriotism, political party loyalty, allegiance to colored cloth on a stick, zip code pride... religion.

The Saudis are elitist dirtbags.. so of course they get along with US party leaders.. birds of a feather flock together.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
What do we expect from a royal family that is very close to the Bush family?

BOOOOM! First words of your comments ... kinda strange. Why on earth would you bring in the former US presidents family? BTW .. Obama BOWED to them and sucks up to them ... but no mention of him in this line of yours? The Bushes haven't got anything to do with Saudi Royalty throwing parties in the Middle East. The Royals are capable of being religious hypocrits all on their own. They are capable of enjoying what their oil money can buy all on their own.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


While I certainly see your point, there are several differences between these Saudi elites and the 9/11 hijackers. The first one being that these hijackers weren't elites, not by any stretch of the imagination. Also, they apparently weren't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes in regards to their religion, as is evident by their extreme act, allegedly in the name of their religion. While these elites seem to not take their religion or god seriously, the 9/11 hijacker apparently did. Last and most important, at least in my opinion, is that these princes and elites aren't about to meet their maker for an act deliberately done in its/his/her name.


--airspoon


reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I support Obama anymore than Bush. I mention Bush because it is Bush and not Obama, who has extremely close ties with the Saudi Royal and Bin Laden family. Sure, Obama may have bowed to them, but Bush's family has business ties and an apparent friendship that goes far beyond what they would seemingly want everyone to know.

I find it a little disturbing and funny at the same time, how people try to interject their phony left-right partisan non-sense into a thread that is really beyond that. While some people may be so ignorant to not see the left-right paradigm of American politics for what it is, many of us aren't. You attempts at clogging this thread with such drival is noted.


--airspoon
edit on 9-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
ultra common in any intensely "religious" country, the more intense and extreme the oppression, in this case sexual/social, the more "throbbing" the side effect ( i liked how they worded it in the article)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Actually, your intelligence (or lack thereof) is showing, considering that I'm conservative (even when judging by the false left-right paradigm of one-dimensional American politics). Furthermore, Bush was a liberal, so even if you were as shallow and ignorant to think that anyone who mentions Bush's corrupt policies or actions is because they are on a different side of the falsely percieved spectrum, it surely wouldn't be because they are "liberal". Now I know that the media tells you that Bush is a conservative, but I can guarantee that unchecked and liberal spending, along with expanding the government to a size larger than any other president in history, are not conservative policies or ideologies. If you agree with Bush policies (the majority of them, anyway) then you are a liberal, regardless of whatever pundit you delegate your critical self thinking skills too, tells you.


I struck a nerve did I not?
I will admit that President Bush is more left(way more left) than what I'd like to see in a leader. He was, however, the only choice I had at the time. I sure as hell didn't want Al Gore nor John Kerry at the helm and I wished that I had another choice than President Bush. If I had any choice of who I wanted to be Commander in Chief, it would have to be Pat Buchanan.There are only a handful of people in this country capable of being the kind of leader I'd fully support. McCain? No. Romney? No. Paul? No. McCrystal? Yes
Just because someone doesn't kiss your behind in these threads doesn't mean you have to get pissed. You intentionally used this thread to bait and while I didn't fall for it, I did give you my opinion.


It is quite clear that you are either intentionally trolling or too ignorant to carry on any kind of intellectual conversation without trying to turn something into a fake partisan bickering session. You might be fooled by this false left-right paradigm, but many of us aren't. In fact, it's ignorance like that, which distracts people just enough for the government to continue on its path of oppression and tyranny. Your trolling tactics of trying to turn this thread into partisan, left-right non-sense is noted.


No. I'm not trolling. It just sickens me that you've got to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you. The article in the thread doesn't have one mention of President Bush in its entirety, yet, you'll mention something about in the very first sentence of your reply. You seek and recieve praise from the left. While it a known fact that royal families around the world have the ability to throw extravagant parties, you dove right in and tied the Bush family into it. Who really cares about the wealthy throwing drinking, drugging and sex parties? I just responded to this thread about your complete irrelevant remark to Bush.


Furthermore, are you trying to suggest that the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family are not friends or at least business partners?


It's a known fact that they have close ties. So what's new with this news? Nothing about what you're suggesting in your initial reply.


Lastly, nowhere ever have I said that all of the information leaked through WL is false. Instead, I said that there is a very good chance that some or much of the information leaked through WL is disinformation. Maybe a little practice with your comprehension skills is in order?


I'm just bubbly at your failure to recognize what is so obvious or your attempt to twist things around.You're really a riot, you do know that. I never once mentioned that you said that all Wikileaks information was false. I merely made note of other threads you've started that sounds as though you're commending the leaks while you criticize them in others.

Disinformation = false = lies. My niece knows this and she's only 10 years old.

Airspoon, you can't ride the fence and there is no gray area. It's all cut and dried and it's all black and white.




edit on 9/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Oh? I wonder if you are aware that Muslims follow a religion? What is that religion? Hinduism? Christianity? Or Islam? I'll tell you if you don't know yet. They follow Islam! Muslims present Islam as a religion. And you contend there's no connection between Islam and Muslims? Are you aware that one billion people from a vast range of races, nationalities and cultures across the globe - from the southern Philippines to Nigeria - are united by their common Islamic faith and are called Muslims?

So too can play that game.

Ohh? I wonder if you are aware that Christians follow a religion? What is that religion? Hinduism? Islam? or Christianity? I'll tell you if you don't know yet. They follow Christianity! Christians present Christianity as a religion. And you contend there's no connection between Christianity and Christians? Are you aware that one billion people from a vast range of races, nationalities and cultures across globe - from the Northern Philippines to Nigeria - are united by their common Christian faith and are called Christians?



You seem to be confused between Islam and 'Mohammedanism', the latter being a misnomer because it suggests that Muslims worship Muhammad rather than God.

Nope, not at all.



So Hitler was a Christian? That's news. He was an atheist, a materialist and rationalist! So what's the connection you were trying to bring out here? Inexplicable!



I never heard Hitler say he is an Atheist, but I did hear him say he is a Christian






"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."


Thanks for the link, it made my job easier finding the quotes.




 


I don't want to confuse kids getting raped in churches with Westernism. Get it>?

Just because they are Westerners who are doing it, doesn't mean Western ideals, or Western culture supports it


edit on 9-12-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


And you went to wikileaks to learn this? Most people that know wealthy Arabs know that they us the west as a playground. I think Wikileaks is bigger than this.
edit on 9-12-2010 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by theendisnear69
Why is it that we allow the biggest hypocrites, and probably some of the most evil people, to control our world?


Because we have other things on our minds?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zamini
 


Absolutely right my friend, they (take religion or make religion) and use it for their own ends! While they live as they damn well please.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

BOOOOM! First words of your comments ... kinda strange. Why on earth would you bring in the former US presidents family? BTW .. Obama BOWED to them and sucks up to them ... but no mention of him in this line of yours? The Bushes haven't got anything to do with Saudi Royalty throwing parties in the Middle East. The Royals are capable of being religious hypocrits all on their own. They are capable of enjoying what their oil money can buy all on their own.



The highlighted part is absolutely false, the Royals without US wouldn't exist.

Why is US troops in Saudi Arabia again?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
I mention Bush because it is Bush and not Obama, who has extremely close ties with the Saudi Royal and Bin Laden family.

AGAIN ... The Bush family having business ties (or whatever) with the Saudi Royals is irrelevant. The Saudi Royals are capable of being drunk sexaholics all on their own without having to have the Bushes as business associates or friends.

YOU immediately brought the Bush family into it and tried (without success) to associate the relationship with the partying of Saudi royals.

I find it a little disturbing and funny at the same time, how people try to interject their phony left-right partisan non-sense into a thread that is really beyond that.

And where EXACTLY did I 'interject phony left-right partisan' into this? No where. YOU are the one that pulled in the Bush family ... out of left field ... into a discussion about the Saudi princes throwing parties. Guess what? The Far-Left British Royals have relations with the Saudi Royals and the Far-Left British Royals are a bunch of bed jumping alcohol drinking rich people .. but you left them out.


You attempts at clogging this thread with such drival is noted.

Your attempts at dodging being caught interjecting your own partisanship is noted.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The Royals are capable of being religious hypocrits all on their own. They are capable of enjoying what their oil money can buy all on their own.

The highlighted part is absolutely false, the Royals without US wouldn't exist.

WRONG again.
:shk: Once again .. it's oozyism twisting things and not bothering to read what is posted.

NO WHERE did I say that the Royals would or wouldn't exist without the US. Try READING what is posted for a change. I said this ... exactly this ... The royals are capable of being religious hypocrits all on their own. They are capable of enjoying what their oil money can buy all on their own. NO WHERE in that statement does it say anything about how they exist or came into being. It is all about their ability to act like human beings and be HYPOCRITS and to decide, on their own, to party with their money. They don't check with the Bush family, or the United States Gov't, to see if they are allowed to party or drink or gamble or use whores ... They make those decisions on their own.




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

WRONG again.
:shk: Once again .. it's oozyism twisting things and not bothering to read what is posted.

NO WHERE did I say that the Royals would or wouldn't exist without the US. Try READING what is posted for a change. I said this ... exactly this ... The royals are capable of being religious hypocrits all on their own. They are capable of enjoying what their oil money can buy all on their own. NO WHERE in that statement does it say anything about how they exist or came into being. It is all about their ability to act like human beings and be HYPOCRITS and to decide, on their own, to party with their money. They don't check with the Bush family, or the United States Gov't, to see if they are allowed to party or drink or gamble or use whores ... They make those decisions on their own.



Nothing has been twisted, you claim the Royals can implement idiotic laws in the country, and allow themselves to be outside the boundaries of those idiotic laws, without the US.

That is absolutely false.

Those royals wouldn't be royals without the US.

If those royals are not royals without US, then they wouldn't be outside those idiotic laws, without the US.

They are puppet, and that's it.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



the Saudi princes are snorting lines of coc aine as they lounge around in Egyptian cotton, thanks to the American tax-payer.


Are you implying that the American taxpayer is footing the bill for this coc aine and Egyptian cotton ? If you are , then please give us a source to substantiate this claim .

I , for one , have noticed how you slip this type of stuff into your posts , and no one ever calls you on it . So , show me a source to back up this ridiculous claim , instead of simply fabricating nonsense such as this and expecting people to take it as gospel simply because you said it .

Go ahead , show me and everyone else here , how the American taxpayer is paying for coc aine and Egyptian cotton for these cats .



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join