Motherfuckers

[Sbee]

Saudia Arabia kills hundreds of people per year by beheading, why don't we invade them?

 

[Spartanmack]

Saudia Arabia kills hundreds of people per year by beheading, why don't we invade them?

Actually, they executed 26 in 2011 and 345 in the 4 years between 2007 and 2011 - that's <100 per year and while some of them may have been executed for being Christian or homosexual, none of them were innocent American journalists murdered because we didn't meet their demands. SA isn't destabilizing the Middle East and they're not trying to take over the region by murdering thousands in a genocidal campaign to establish a caliphate. Also, the spreading of Islamic fundamentalism around the globe is not the stated goal of the Saudi government. Now do you understand why we're not invading SA? Also, so far we're not talking about invading Iraq or Syria.

 

[Sbee]

Actually, they executed 26 in 2011 and 345 in the 4 years between 2007 and 2011 - that's <100 per year and while some of them may have been executed for being Christian or homosexual, none of them were innocent American journalists murdered because we didn't meet their demands. SA isn't destabilizing the Middle East and they're not trying to take over the region by murdering thousands in a genocidal campaign to establish a caliphate. Also, the spreading of Islamic fundamentalism around the globe is not the stated goal of the Saudi government. Now do you understand why we're not invading SA? Also, so far we're not talking about invading Iraq or Syria.

I'm sure you knew that my statement was rhetorical, they've had a surge of executions, i think about 30 since August. There's obviously a visceral reaction to a beheading that you don't get with a car bombing or shooting. Hopefully it doesn't lead to an overreaction from the president, no matter what he does the GOP will have a problem with it. They just need to figure out what is action plan is so they can line up against it.

Saudia Arabia is a supplier of crude to the US, maybe less now because of shale/fracking but we still need them. We tend to look the other way to atrocities when it benefits us economically.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yes, I understood that it was rhetorical, but it was also disingenuous. It is not the stated policy of the United States to invade every country we perceive to have committed human rights violations and the US has turned a blind eye to lots of atrocities in countries where the US has no direct economic interests (Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, all of West Africa, Afghanistan after Russia left and before 9/11, etc, etc) so there is nothing hypocritical about not invading Saudi Arabia. And human rights violations are not the main premise for the call to action against ISIS/ISIL.

As for the spike in executions in SA, it could easily be a security move in reaction to the rapid growth of ISIS - cracking down on anti-Saudi family radicals within Saudi Arabia to demonstrate how they deal w/ those who oppose them or it could even be an appeasement to ISIS (demonstrating their strict adherence to sharia law).

 

[Michchamp]

Yes, I understood that it was rhetorical, but it was also disingenuous. It is not the stated policy of the United States to invade every country we perceive to have committed human rights violations and the US has turned a blind eye to lots of atrocities where the perpetrators provided no direct benefit to the US (Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, all of West Africa, Afghanistan after Russia left and before 9/11, etc, etc) so there is nothing hypocritical about not invading Saudi Arabia. And human rights violations are not the main premise for the call to action against ISIS/ISIL.

that seemed to be what a lot of the internet tough guys here are basing the call to action on though, unless I misread half the posts in this thread.

so what is the main premise then, Mr. Foreign Policy Expert? please enlighten us.

 

[Michchamp]

this story kinda undermines any nationalistic fervor produced by James Foley's death, no?

The mother of slain American journalist James Foley said she wasn’t necessarily surprised that the U.S. government threatened her family with prosecution should they raise money to pay her son’s ransom, but she was astounded by how such a devastating message was delivered.
​

 

[Spartanmack]

that seemed to be what a lot of the internet tough guys here are basing the call to action on though, unless I misread half the posts in this thread.

so what is the main premise then, Mr. Foreign Policy Expert? please enlighten us.

Well if it's not obvious, maybe you can find another New York Times article like this gem

"Despite the attention ISIS has received, when American counterterrorism officials review the threats to the United States each day, the terror group is not a top concern.

that tells us what Iranian shop keepers and taxi drivers think the main premise is...

 

[Spartanmack]

this story kinda undermines any nationalistic fervor produced by James Foley's death, no?

The mother of slain American journalist James Foley said she wasn’t necessarily surprised that the U.S. government threatened her family with prosecution should they raise money to pay her son’s ransom, but she was astounded by how such a devastating message was delivered.
​

No. Most people were already aware the State Dept is run by a feckless circus clown in charge of a monkey brigade. Incremental evidence of this doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

 

[tinselwolverine]

So...let me see if I have this right...

ISIS and Assad are at war with each other...so instead of just kicking back and letting them take each other out...we're going to provoke hostilities from them toward us, and put our troops in harms way against BOTH of them?

We've pretty much identified EVERYBODY in this conflict is a bad guy...but we're gonna plunge right into this shit anyway?

And the knuckleheaded leaders of both parties view this undertaking as sane and rational?

Somebody tell me what I'm missing here...

 

[Thumb]

So...let me see if I have this right...

ISIS and Assad are at war with each other...so instead of just kicking back and letting them take each other out...we're going to provoke hostilities from them toward us, and put our troops in harms way against BOTH of them?

We've pretty much identified EVERYBODY in this conflict is a bad guy...but we're gonna plunge right into this shit anyway?

And the knuckleheaded leaders of both parties view this undertaking as sane and rational?

Somebody tell me what I'm missing here...

Well, zyxt will probably tell you you're a terrorist lover for even attempting for a second to think rationally and not just going balls to the wall gung ho kill 'em all on them.

But yeah, same thing I have been saying. ISIL is a regional problem, and every government in the region wants them dead, so why are/should American boys being sent to do the job?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, zyxt will probably tell you you're a terrorist lover for even attempting for a second to think rationally and not just going balls to the wall gung ho kill 'em all on them.

But yeah, same thing I have been saying. ISIL is a regional problem, and every government in the region wants them dead, so why are/should American boys being sent to do the job?

I don't think zyxt will call me a terrorist lover.