5 ms·

A friend suggested something similar about Trump & his relationship with Russia. Whatever happens there, he's positioning himself as the strongest candidate in

by bhaumik 10y ago

A friend suggested something similar about Trump & his relationship with Russia. Whatever happens there, he's positioning himself as the strongest candidate in 2020 to deal with the aftermath.

artursapek 10y ago
I keep seeing people speculating about Trump and his supposed relationship with Russia, and yet Hillary's proven relationship with Saudi Arabia was barely discussed during the election.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago
  15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudi. The rest were from UAE (2), Egypt, and Lebanon. The Saudis are largely responsible for the spread of Wahhabism, which in turn has fueled extremist islamic ideology. Both the left and the right have ties to KSA. And they've been major donors to both parties, but especially the democrats. Sad that the MSM willfully ignores this topic.
  - hyggyhhfdd 10y ago
    And the usa buys oil from them and yet they have a cuban embargo. It's a conspiracy I tell you. I think things are a bit more complicated then your smear campaign. Go and join your brothers at breitbart.
  - philwelch 10y ago
    Bin Laden and his crew were Saudi dissidents who were trying to overthrow the Saudi government. Their grievance with us was that we are allied to/stationed troops within/prop up the kingdom they were trying to overthrow. Blaming "the Saudis" for 9/11 is like blaming the Queen for IRA bombings.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    I think geopolitics gets in the way: Saudi Arabia is an ally to the United States- not the GOP or the Democrats. This arrangement is probably seen as best for American Interests, at least by several administrations regardless of party - I have read theories about the petro-dollar but I'm not familiar enough with Economics to weigh in. Not too long ago, the Republicans pushed a law allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the KSA. Obama vetoed the bill and the GOP overrode the veto. Not long afterwards, the GOP whip[1] was regretting the law and blaming Obama for not pushing back enough(!). Now, I don't think there's a conspiracy going on, it's just realpolitik/ nation-state equivalent of having a friend who is a dick but lets you play with his nice toys. 1. Might have been "senate majority leader" I'm on mobile and haven't looked it up the correct title. Edit: I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. Publicly blaming the Saudi government might not be the most prudent thing to do, just as Uganda shouldn't blame the US government for the actions of American Christian evangelicals stoking homophobia in Uganda. I know it's comparing Apples to ghost pepper
    - 3131s 10y ago
      > I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. You should read about Bandar bin Sultan, AKA "Bandar Bush", Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States for 20+ years [1]. Zacarias Moussaoui stated under oath that Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi government financed 9/11, and the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Comission Report detail how two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. His nickname comes from his close affiliation with the Bush family. Bob Woodward claims that W. Bush told Bandar about the invasion of Iraq before Colin Powell. It is very likely that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11, and it is worth investigating whether Bush and / or Cheney had foreknowledge of the attacks [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
- woofyman 10y ago
  Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. If Trump wants to end speculation, just release his tax returns.
  - ithinkinstereo 10y ago
    > Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. Huh? It's been widely reported that the Saudi government has made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. See: [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
    - woofyman 10y ago
      And your point is? We know about those donations because the foundation disclosed those donations as described by your first link. So I stand by my statement that it wasn't "proven". That implies that it took an investigation to reveal.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Large donations, whether for a charity or otherwise, are far less of a problem of influence than on-going unknown liabilities and assets ultimately controlled by foreign governments. If you want to directly give any amount of money directly to Trump not subject to any kind of campaign donation limitations, just buy a hotel room for some duration. If you want someone in U.S. custody released, take the principle operating officers of the president's hotels into custody without trial. And I also wonder whether Trump owned/named buildings are possible targets in the same way American embassies can be targets; and then who pays for the ensuing security evaluations, monitoring, and reinforcement of all of those buildings. Is an attack on any of those buildings an attack on merely the Trump organization, or is it an attack on the president, and indirectly on the U.S.? The differences in liability and unknowns between the incoming president and all previous presidents is qualitatively extremely different, and likely in unpredictable ways.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  The Saudi Arabian government is one of the closest allies of the United States, and has been for nearly 50 years. A US presidential candidate who was the wife of a former President, an influential Senator and Secretary of State would be expected to have a significant relationship with the Saudis. That's not to say that HRC didn't ride or cross the ethical line. But that is much different than what Trump is implied to be doing.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- philwelch 10y ago
  That's because Saudi Arabia isn't an adversary of the United States that seeks to undermine our democracy. It's not an issue to people who grasp the fact that not all Arabs and Muslims are our enemies.

by bhaumik 10y ago

A friend suggested something similar about Trump & his relationship with Russia. Whatever happens there, he's positioning himself as the strongest candidate in 2020 to deal with the aftermath.

artursapek 10y ago

I keep seeing people speculating about Trump and his supposed relationship with Russia, and yet Hillary's proven relationship with Saudi Arabia was barely discussed during the election.

ithinkinstereo 10y ago
15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudi. The rest were from UAE (2), Egypt, and Lebanon. The Saudis are largely responsible for the spread of Wahhabism, which in turn has fueled extremist islamic ideology. Both the left and the right have ties to KSA. And they've been major donors to both parties, but especially the democrats. Sad that the MSM willfully ignores this topic.
- hyggyhhfdd 10y ago
  And the usa buys oil from them and yet they have a cuban embargo. It's a conspiracy I tell you. I think things are a bit more complicated then your smear campaign. Go and join your brothers at breitbart.
- philwelch 10y ago
  Bin Laden and his crew were Saudi dissidents who were trying to overthrow the Saudi government. Their grievance with us was that we are allied to/stationed troops within/prop up the kingdom they were trying to overthrow. Blaming "the Saudis" for 9/11 is like blaming the Queen for IRA bombings.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  I think geopolitics gets in the way: Saudi Arabia is an ally to the United States- not the GOP or the Democrats. This arrangement is probably seen as best for American Interests, at least by several administrations regardless of party - I have read theories about the petro-dollar but I'm not familiar enough with Economics to weigh in. Not too long ago, the Republicans pushed a law allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the KSA. Obama vetoed the bill and the GOP overrode the veto. Not long afterwards, the GOP whip[1] was regretting the law and blaming Obama for not pushing back enough(!). Now, I don't think there's a conspiracy going on, it's just realpolitik/ nation-state equivalent of having a friend who is a dick but lets you play with his nice toys. 1. Might have been "senate majority leader" I'm on mobile and haven't looked it up the correct title. Edit: I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. Publicly blaming the Saudi government might not be the most prudent thing to do, just as Uganda shouldn't blame the US government for the actions of American Christian evangelicals stoking homophobia in Uganda. I know it's comparing Apples to ghost pepper
  - 3131s 10y ago
    > I am assuming that the Saudi government wasn't involved in 9/11 and that it was the actions of religious extremists. You should read about Bandar bin Sultan, AKA "Bandar Bush", Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States for 20+ years [1]. Zacarias Moussaoui stated under oath that Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi government financed 9/11, and the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Comission Report detail how two of the 9/11 hijackers received $130,000 in payment from Bandar's checking account. His nickname comes from his close affiliation with the Bush family. Bob Woodward claims that W. Bush told Bandar about the invasion of Iraq before Colin Powell. It is very likely that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11, and it is worth investigating whether Bush and / or Cheney had foreknowledge of the attacks [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
woofyman 10y ago
Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. If Trump wants to end speculation, just release his tax returns.
- ithinkinstereo 10y ago
  > Are you referring to their donation to the Clinton Foundation? That wasn't proven, it was revealed by the Foundation. All donations have been made public. Huh? It's been widely reported that the Saudi government has made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. See: [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/american-crossroads/conservative-group-claims-hillary-clintons-foundat/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
  - woofyman 10y ago
    And your point is? We know about those donations because the foundation disclosed those donations as described by your first link. So I stand by my statement that it wasn't "proven". That implies that it took an investigation to reveal.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Large donations, whether for a charity or otherwise, are far less of a problem of influence than on-going unknown liabilities and assets ultimately controlled by foreign governments. If you want to directly give any amount of money directly to Trump not subject to any kind of campaign donation limitations, just buy a hotel room for some duration. If you want someone in U.S. custody released, take the principle operating officers of the president's hotels into custody without trial. And I also wonder whether Trump owned/named buildings are possible targets in the same way American embassies can be targets; and then who pays for the ensuing security evaluations, monitoring, and reinforcement of all of those buildings. Is an attack on any of those buildings an attack on merely the Trump organization, or is it an attack on the president, and indirectly on the U.S.? The differences in liability and unknowns between the incoming president and all previous presidents is qualitatively extremely different, and likely in unpredictable ways.
Spooky23 10y ago
The Saudi Arabian government is one of the closest allies of the United States, and has been for nearly 50 years. A US presidential candidate who was the wife of a former President, an influential Senator and Secretary of State would be expected to have a significant relationship with the Saudis. That's not to say that HRC didn't ride or cross the ethical line. But that is much different than what Trump is implied to be doing.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
philwelch 10y ago
That's because Saudi Arabia isn't an adversary of the United States that seeks to undermine our democracy. It's not an issue to people who grasp the fact that not all Arabs and Muslims are our enemies.