3 ms·

Please refrain from making strawman arguments. We're discussing the source of the problem. The source is in fact the local rulers. They make the choices. The U

Please refrain from making strawman arguments. We're discussing the source of the problem. The source is in fact the local rulers. They make the choices. The US sells arms to the rulers, as does the UK. Europe buys oil from them, as does China, in large amounts. But none of these nations force the KSA government to be oppressive. That's a choice the government there makes.

colanderman 14y ago
No one forces terrorists to terrorize. Therefore donating no-strings-attached monetary aid to terrorists is not to blame for acts of terrorism, correct? I'm merely forming an analogous argument to yours: mine is in support of subsidizing terrorists, yours is in support of subsidizing systematic violators of human rights. If you can point out why the analogy is not valid, please do so. Re: your edit: at issue is not that the US purchases goods from the Saudis (though it could be argued that we have a moral obligation to impose an embargo), but rather, as the parent of your post suggested, that the US subsidizes artificially low oil prices from the region.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. What do governments exist to do? To govern. There are all sorts of choices to make about how to govern, many of which do not oppress the people. Any form of terrorism by its nature will harm people. So it's not really analogous. In no way is the source of the oppression the US, or Europe, or China. The source of the oppression is the Saudi government.
  - sandollars 14y ago
    > what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. Seriously? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There is always an agenda, and terrorism is merely a means to an end that frustrated and (usually) deeply disturbed human beings turn to when they see no other viable course of action.
    - ars 14y ago
      > One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter People say this a lot, but actually one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist. Legitimizing targeting civilians as "freedom fighting" is horrible. If you actually fight for freedom, then freedom is the goal. But the goal of a terrorist is killing.
      - Someone 14y ago
        Somebody should help terrorists choose names for their organizations, then: - PLO = Palestine Liberation Front - ETA = Basque Homeland and Freedom - IRA = Irish Republican Army etc. I would call someone whose goal is killing a soldier or a murderer. IMO, the reason terrorists kill civilians is the same as why, in a dispute between two children of largely different strength, the one who is verbally weakest will start fighting, and the one who is physically weakest then will start fighting dirty (biting, nail scratching, hair pulling, etc)
- clarky07 14y ago
  It breaks down because our government exists to serve us, not the Saudis. Supporting terrorists is obviously 100% bad for us. Supporting cheap oil, while maybe not 100% good, certainly is an easier argument to make. Would we prefer they didn't put their women in de facto slavery? Of course. Does it effect us? No. Would a rebel govt that disrupts oil production effect us? Yes.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    But if you're profiting from the fact that exactly because those women are oppressed, you can have cheap oil (thus cheap car, cheap iPhone, cheap internet, etc.), don't you feel that as a human being, it's your duty to protest? Especially since if you do, you won't be sentenced to prison, torture or death (as those poor women would if they protested) because you have the privilege of living in a free, democratic country? That's why we ended the profitable business of slavery, after all.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      We aren't profiting because they are oppressed. They are being oppressed and we aren't actively speaking out against it. Those are different things. This is the same BS we see all the time in America. People need to take personal responsibility. These women are being oppressed by the Saudi government. America hasn't helped them, but that doesn't make it our fault. I'm fine with arguing that America should do something to help all oppressed people in the world (I don't think it's possible or should be done) but you can make that argument. You can't say it's our fault for not stopping it.
      - pooriaazimi 14y ago
        I disagree. By buying oil and selling arms, they are helping them. In case you aren't aware, Taliban and Mujahadeen were US allies in Afghanistan. And by ally, I mean really ally. They fought together against the Soviets. US was giving them weapons and aid. In a trip to Afghanistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Advisor) called the Mujahadeen and Taliban (the same guys that were treating women like trash), "Soldiers of God" and told then We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side. Watch it on video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lf0RT72iw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lf0RT72iw Or, if you have time, watch this episode of the terrific CNN documentary (Cold War, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIU0e23ZTcU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIU0e23ZTcU So, in essence: yes, US helped Mujahadeen, Taliban, Saudies and others. And people in the west are profiting from that. I don't agree with everything these two article says, but at least watch the pictures: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-dev... http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/23860 http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/23860 Just look at this picture: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahideen1.jpg http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahi... - It's US president Ronald Reagan with some ass-backward, woman-beating fucks in the White House... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA
pooriaazimi 14y ago
Some would say that being buddies with these rulers (Bush (Sr. and Jr.) and Saudies were close friends and allies), buying oil and selling arms is exactly what enables KSA and co. to be "oppressive".

colanderman 14y ago

No one forces terrorists to terrorize. Therefore donating no-strings-attached monetary aid to terrorists is not to blame for acts of terrorism, correct? I'm merely forming an analogous argument to yours: mine is in support of subsidizing terrorists, yours is in support of subsidizing systematic violators of human rights. If you can point out why the analogy is not valid, please do so. Re: your edit: at issue is not that the US purchases goods from the Saudis (though it could be argued that we have a moral obligation to impose an embargo), but rather, as the parent of your post suggested, that the US subsidizes artificially low oil prices from the region.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. What do governments exist to do? To govern. There are all sorts of choices to make about how to govern, many of which do not oppress the people. Any form of terrorism by its nature will harm people. So it's not really analogous. In no way is the source of the oppression the US, or Europe, or China. The source of the oppression is the Saudi government.
- sandollars 14y ago
  > what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. Seriously? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There is always an agenda, and terrorism is merely a means to an end that frustrated and (usually) deeply disturbed human beings turn to when they see no other viable course of action.
  - ars 14y ago
    > One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter People say this a lot, but actually one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist. Legitimizing targeting civilians as "freedom fighting" is horrible. If you actually fight for freedom, then freedom is the goal. But the goal of a terrorist is killing.
    - Someone 14y ago
      Somebody should help terrorists choose names for their organizations, then: - PLO = Palestine Liberation Front - ETA = Basque Homeland and Freedom - IRA = Irish Republican Army etc. I would call someone whose goal is killing a soldier or a murderer. IMO, the reason terrorists kill civilians is the same as why, in a dispute between two children of largely different strength, the one who is verbally weakest will start fighting, and the one who is physically weakest then will start fighting dirty (biting, nail scratching, hair pulling, etc)
clarky07 14y ago
It breaks down because our government exists to serve us, not the Saudis. Supporting terrorists is obviously 100% bad for us. Supporting cheap oil, while maybe not 100% good, certainly is an easier argument to make. Would we prefer they didn't put their women in de facto slavery? Of course. Does it effect us? No. Would a rebel govt that disrupts oil production effect us? Yes.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  But if you're profiting from the fact that exactly because those women are oppressed, you can have cheap oil (thus cheap car, cheap iPhone, cheap internet, etc.), don't you feel that as a human being, it's your duty to protest? Especially since if you do, you won't be sentenced to prison, torture or death (as those poor women would if they protested) because you have the privilege of living in a free, democratic country? That's why we ended the profitable business of slavery, after all.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    We aren't profiting because they are oppressed. They are being oppressed and we aren't actively speaking out against it. Those are different things. This is the same BS we see all the time in America. People need to take personal responsibility. These women are being oppressed by the Saudi government. America hasn't helped them, but that doesn't make it our fault. I'm fine with arguing that America should do something to help all oppressed people in the world (I don't think it's possible or should be done) but you can make that argument. You can't say it's our fault for not stopping it.
    - pooriaazimi 14y ago
      I disagree. By buying oil and selling arms, they are helping them. In case you aren't aware, Taliban and Mujahadeen were US allies in Afghanistan. And by ally, I mean really ally. They fought together against the Soviets. US was giving them weapons and aid. In a trip to Afghanistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Advisor) called the Mujahadeen and Taliban (the same guys that were treating women like trash), "Soldiers of God" and told then We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side. Watch it on video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lf0RT72iw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lf0RT72iw Or, if you have time, watch this episode of the terrific CNN documentary (Cold War, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIU0e23ZTcU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIU0e23ZTcU So, in essence: yes, US helped Mujahadeen, Taliban, Saudies and others. And people in the west are profiting from that. I don't agree with everything these two article says, but at least watch the pictures: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-dev... http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/23860 http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/23860 Just look at this picture: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahideen1.jpg http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahi... - It's US president Ronald Reagan with some ass-backward, woman-beating fucks in the White House... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA

pooriaazimi 14y ago

Some would say that being buddies with these rulers (Bush (Sr. and Jr.) and Saudies were close friends and allies), buying oil and selling arms is exactly what enables KSA and co. to be "oppressive".