Zain
if you find one post that I have written where I have said “all” people that belong to any nationality or faith are bad. I will send you $100.
With the exception of those heathen fake whirrling derveshes who whirrl clockwise, unlike yours truly who whirrls counter clockwise as that is the right way.
As you may have noticed now, I will not accept someone saying all arabs are bad, just as I will not accpt someone saying that there are no problems in arabs.
fairly simple concept really.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
Exactly Fraudz...Now you are making sense...Not all Arabs are bad and not all Talibs are repressive and not all Al-Qaeda followers are terrorists...So we should not cheer the deaths of our brothers in faith...They are fighting a war for the Ummah...My thread in the images section will explain why they fight that war...And why the fight will grow and come to every Muslim home, then there will be only do or die...
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you in some respect. however there are some major differences..
one can be born as an arab or as a muslim, associate with a group because that his is religious or ethnic or racial identity.
One chooses to be a part of taleban or al qaeda..a rather different situation.
Now do I think all taleban were repressive, no, have never bought that argument. There must have been dedicated people who saw that as the only way to save their country from the internal plundering by warlords.
but Talebvan regime as a whole stood for repression..
now for al qaeda, is everyone in the group a terrorist who is just intersted in killing people, probably not, there must be people there who are thinking that they are doing a good deed. But the group overall stands for terror..if i were one of these ppl, i would get the heck out. as far as their fight for the Ummah goes, the attacks killing innocent ppl in Riyadh, Turkey and Pakistan is not quite the way.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
These "ROYALS" were royal long before U.S. had anything to do with SA. They fought their own battles and have been in power for some 100 years I believe. ...
[/QUOTE]
Have you studied their history? They were part of so-called Ottoman's Empire before WW I, and after the war as Ottoman Empire was ripped apart, the "democracy exporting countries" gave the governments to who THEY thought THEY would be able to "check and control". Any guesses as to how sincere these "ROYALS" have been to local population? (Not Just Saudi Arabia, look at other parts of Ottoman Empire).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
An honest question(s):
.....
[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't that be a new thread?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
Have you studied their history? They were part of so-called Ottoman's Empire before WW I, and after the war as Ottoman Empire was ripped apart, the "democracy exporting countries" gave the governments to who THEY thought THEY would be able to "check and control". Any guesses as to how sincere these "ROYALS" have been to local population? (Not Just Saudi Arabia, look at other parts of Ottoman Empire).
[/QUOTE]
The west did not "give" the royals the government. They fought for it for many years preceding WWI. They defeated the Ottomans in battles. In the Ottoman-Saudi Treaty of 1914, the Ottomans appointed Ibn Saud as governor of Najd and hereditary rule for his family. But if you insists on laying some blame on the west for their installation, lay it on the Brits, not the US.
same deal for the monrachy of Iraq, which dinn last long though..for a refresher watch lawrence of arabia :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
Have you studied their history? They were part of so-called Ottoman's Empire before WW I, and after the war as Ottoman Empire was ripped apart, the "democracy exporting countries" gave the governments to who THEY thought THEY would be able to "check and control". Any guesses as to how sincere these "ROYALS" have been to local population? (Not Just Saudi Arabia, look at other parts of Ottoman Empire).
[/QUOTE]
Part of Arabia was under control of the Ottomans, but the Saud family steadily gained power leading up to the 1920s. In the late fifties the Saudi King visited U.S. Soon after the government was liberalized a bit. Hey thats nice that the American govt. had such an effect on the Saudi royalty. C'mon, you know it is.
Yes, the U.S. has sold weapons and built the Saudi oil industry, but please tell me about the tolerant, democratic popular movement that has always ached to be free of this family since the late 1800s. Ultra-conservative fundamentalists are the group prevented from controlling that country/region, by the over 100 year reign of this family. Is this what you advocate for Saudi Arabia? Remember the royal family got into power just fine on its own, and to my knowlegde(limited I admit), there is no flowering democracy movement that but for Saudi royal Oil, would flourish there.
Saudi Columnist: ‘We Have Bred Monsters … We Are the Problem and Not America’
On November 30, 2003, Dr. Muhammad Talal Al-Rasheed, columnist for the English language daily The Saudi Gazette, wrote an article titled “Senseless Violence, Senseless Death.” The article is in reaction to the murder of Saudi Prince Talal Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Rasheed of Hail by ‘Islamists’ in Algeria. The following are excerpts from the article: (1)
"…A few days back Prince Talal Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Rasheed of Hail was murdered in Algeria while on a camping trip. He was 40 years old and his son, Nawaf, 13 years old, was with him. At the time of this writing, we only know that the father was killed, while the son s condition is to be verified.
"It is easy to get on one s soap box and pontificate; to tell humanity that we suffer from terrorism too. That is too easy though; and perhaps too intellectually cowardly. Talal was a well-known poet in Saudi Arabia. He comes from a family that ruled Arabia long enough to be recorded in history. He was and will always be a beacon of Art, whatever that word means.
"Those who killed him are those who want the word silenced. The young man left it open whether he was with this or that, but he was adamant to tell all and sundry that to be is to talk and exchange. I grieve, I must admit, and am beyond reason because of the trauma of it all, but I do maintain a semblance of reason to see where all of this is leading.
"We have bred monsters. We alone are responsible for it. I have written as much before my personal tragedy and will continue to do so for as long as it takes. We are the problem and not America or the penguins of the North Pole or those who live in caves in Afghanistan. We are it, and those who cannot see this are the ones to blame.
"Castrated as we are, we look to America. Why? Because they went into Iraq and made a difference. Better or worse is another point. Once America has demonstrated its willingness to do something, the moral imperative is that it should not stop at the first station along the road. The majority of us are sick and tired of this carnage and President Bush, wrong on just about everything else, is right on this one. Does he have the (courage) to finish the job? I wonder.
“I don t think this will be published in the Arab News, as it should be. If not, I understand their point of view and their perpetual selectiveness. But one thing is sure, we are here to stay even if it takes giving our best to the madness of religion and the wrong of fanaticism. Nothing, but nothing, is worth the life of an innocent… may the Americans add Talal to their list of loved ones lost to the same indiscriminate madness that took 3,000 on a certain day in September.”
Endnote:
(1) The Saudi Gazette, November 30, 2003.