5 ms·

So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there. This is anti-national security

by pstuart 13y ago

So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there. This is anti-national security -- all this does is pour gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. People like you supporting this madness is the reason the world is going to hell. Ugh.

rayiner 13y ago
Saudi funded religious schools are a key formenter of anti-American Islamist sentiment around the world. Forget drones, their actions warrant larger-scale military action.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Just so I know I'm not misunderstanding: the fact that they fund religious schools alone justifies bombings, invasions, etc.? We're through the looking glass here, people.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    No, the fact that they fund religious schools that teach virulently anti-western sentiment is an attack on our national interest and justifies military action.
    - girvo 13y ago
      I really disagree with you, entirely on this matter, but come on people, don't down vote just because you hate that viewpoint...
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Maybe we should stop buying Saudi oil first? I mean, we've pretended to stop buying Iranian oil, so we could pretend that about Saudi as well. I hear good things about fracking. From an ethical standpoint, you violate the Categorical Imperative, to say nothing of the Golden Rule. We also have schools (religious and otherwise) that demonize Islam, Arab nations, Iran, etc. Does that fact justify violent action on the part of those aggrieved parties? Should we care about similar anti-"western" lessons taught in various parts of Asia and South America? Suddenly it seems your proposition could be very profitable for the military-industrial complex...
      - rayiner 13y ago
        First, drawing false equivalence is never a compelling mode of argumentation. I don't know of any federal program to build schools that "demonize" Islam or Arab nations. That message certainly exists, but it's not a government-sponsored message. Second, it's not just schools that teach anti-Western statement. It's a concerted effort by Saudi Arabia to aggrandize its influence over the Islamic world while undermining western influence. Maintaining spheres of influence has, historically, been considered a sufficient justification for engaging in military action. Third, if you want an ethical argument, how about this one: the world under western influence is fairer and more just than the world under Saudi influence. In my home country of 150 million people, Islam as it was practiced used to be relatively liberal. Our country derived its cultural cues from India and Britain. With increased Saudi influence came the loss of secular democracy and the oppression of women. Increasing Saudi influence and decreasing western influence is robbing hundreds of millions of muslims around the world of the benefits of progress. What's so ethical about allowing that to continue?
        jessaustin 13y ago
        You consider the equivalence false, but would a visitor from another planet agree with you? More to the point, do average Muslims agree with you? I realize that Islam has its faults; it is a human activity after all. I realize that the ways in which some Muslims demonize "the West" differs in important respects from the ways in which some westerners demonize Islam. I'll stipulate that "Saudi" Islam has been a bad influence in your home country. But what the hell does that have to do with USA military action? If Bangladeshis want to kick Saudis out of Bangladesh, they can damn well do it themselves. How pathetic would the USA have to be to fight a proxy war with that objective? Please, even though you find your personal opinions happen to coincide with the slogans of the USA military-industrial complex, don't imagine that entity ever has you or your home country's well-being in mind.
pearjuice 13y ago
>Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there We will need some source on that because it is evident 9/11 was an inside job.

by pstuart 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Saudi funded religious schools are a key formenter of anti-American Islamist sentiment around the world. Forget drones, their actions warrant larger-scale military action.

jessaustin 13y ago
Just so I know I'm not misunderstanding: the fact that they fund religious schools alone justifies bombings, invasions, etc.? We're through the looking glass here, people.
- rayiner 13y ago
  No, the fact that they fund religious schools that teach virulently anti-western sentiment is an attack on our national interest and justifies military action.
  - girvo 13y ago
    I really disagree with you, entirely on this matter, but come on people, don't down vote just because you hate that viewpoint...
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Maybe we should stop buying Saudi oil first? I mean, we've pretended to stop buying Iranian oil, so we could pretend that about Saudi as well. I hear good things about fracking. From an ethical standpoint, you violate the Categorical Imperative, to say nothing of the Golden Rule. We also have schools (religious and otherwise) that demonize Islam, Arab nations, Iran, etc. Does that fact justify violent action on the part of those aggrieved parties? Should we care about similar anti-"western" lessons taught in various parts of Asia and South America? Suddenly it seems your proposition could be very profitable for the military-industrial complex...
    - rayiner 13y ago
      First, drawing false equivalence is never a compelling mode of argumentation. I don't know of any federal program to build schools that "demonize" Islam or Arab nations. That message certainly exists, but it's not a government-sponsored message. Second, it's not just schools that teach anti-Western statement. It's a concerted effort by Saudi Arabia to aggrandize its influence over the Islamic world while undermining western influence. Maintaining spheres of influence has, historically, been considered a sufficient justification for engaging in military action. Third, if you want an ethical argument, how about this one: the world under western influence is fairer and more just than the world under Saudi influence. In my home country of 150 million people, Islam as it was practiced used to be relatively liberal. Our country derived its cultural cues from India and Britain. With increased Saudi influence came the loss of secular democracy and the oppression of women. Increasing Saudi influence and decreasing western influence is robbing hundreds of millions of muslims around the world of the benefits of progress. What's so ethical about allowing that to continue?
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        You consider the equivalence false, but would a visitor from another planet agree with you? More to the point, do average Muslims agree with you? I realize that Islam has its faults; it is a human activity after all. I realize that the ways in which some Muslims demonize "the West" differs in important respects from the ways in which some westerners demonize Islam. I'll stipulate that "Saudi" Islam has been a bad influence in your home country. But what the hell does that have to do with USA military action? If Bangladeshis want to kick Saudis out of Bangladesh, they can damn well do it themselves. How pathetic would the USA have to be to fight a proxy war with that objective? Please, even though you find your personal opinions happen to coincide with the slogans of the USA military-industrial complex, don't imagine that entity ever has you or your home country's well-being in mind.

pearjuice 13y ago

>Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there We will need some source on that because it is evident 9/11 was an inside job.