One of several causes of the 9/11 attacks, by Saudi Arabian Freedom Fighters, was the presence of American military personnel in their homeland that also is all Muslims’ Holy Land, Saudi Arabia.
Today, C-Span had a live report of a joint State and Defense Department briefing on another agreement placed upon The House of Saud to not only purchase the most advanced Boeing F-15 fighter/bombers, and related equipment and munitions made by other American manufacturers, but also to permit the basing of American military personnel (“training personnel”) on the Holy Land of the Muslims.
The two Americans who gave the briefing, Andrew Shapiro and James Miller, stated, in effect, that the nation of Saudi Arabia needed that sophisticated weaponry to defend itself. Those civil servants should know that all of the nations that border Saudi Arabia are Muslim nations, as are many other nations from Morocco to Indonesia. Hundreds of millions of Muslims would attack any nation that attacked their Holy Land.
Furthermore, to remove American military forces from the region surrounding their Holy Land has always been an objective of Muslim organizations, that include the non-sectarian Al Qaeda (The Group) that exists in many countries and The Hezbollah from Iran, and the very religious, family-oriented Taliban.
Mr. Shapiro should know both several reasons why Osama Bin Ladin had been exiled from his homeland by the House of Saud, and why State Department personnel at Khartoum refused to give him a visa to be with his relatives living in deluxe apartments along the Charles River in Massachusetts. For example, Mr. Bin Ladin had spoken (too loudly) about how Saudi princes were not living according to Muslim religious law.
Remember, United States forces, including American-made ground-to-air missiles, helped the Taliban remove communist Russian military personnel from Afghanistan. Mr. Miller should recall “the hints” that Muslims gave his Defense Department when three bombs were driven into Marine and Army barracks and a Navy destroyer. Mr. Shapiro’s State Department associates received similar “hints” at two of their embassies on The Horn of Africa. American staffs of both the Pentagon and State Department knew very well from whence much of the funds used to force tens of thousands of Arabs out of their homes into detention camps and squalid refugee camps had been raised in the USA. Both knew the Shia Hezbollah, from Iran, helped build clinics and schools in southern Lebanon. Both American staffs should know how a few Hezbollah tried to help unite Arab women refugees with their husbands and sons, only to have the IDF kill thousands of Arab civilians with American-made jets and missiles.
The bottom line is that our President, following recommendations of his technical staffs, is setting up the United States as a target of more Muslim Freedom Fighters, whose very obvious objective is to cause the removal of American military forces from their Holy Land.
How would you like your children to be frightened by the sight of foreign military personnel, who do not speak our tribal language (English) in their neighborhood?
The obvious program we should adopt is to stop sending American tax dollars into foreign economies, paying for the room and board of American military personnel both in and out of uniform, as are the hated American mercenaries.
Here’s to a happier forever.
Joseph B. Ryan
Sun City West
sockratties posted at 6:43 am on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
Joseph – It's interesting that you choose to refer to al Qaeda as Saudi Arabian Freedom Fighters rather than the terrorists they are. They may have been freedom fighters when they were fighting Soviet aggression in Afghanistan but they were terrorists on 9/11 and when they bombed the U.S.S. Cole, and when they bombed the barracks and embassies. You call these hints but some would call them acts of war. Terrorists are not the good guys, Joe, even if you sympathize with their motives.
There is no doubt that our presence is unwelcome in many places around the globe. We should avoid throwing our weight around if there is no national interest in doing so. The ramifications of any deployment of U.S. Troops should take such responses into considerations.
Osama bin Laden was from a rich Saudi Family and was a benefactor of our support against the Russians. Al Qaeda was as much our creation as anyone's. Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, is an organization that receives support from Shiites in both Iran and Syria. Your point about us creating our own enemies is well taken. Much of what is seen as Muslim hate against U.S. presence in the Middle East is actually sectarian backlash because we support a Sunni or Shiite faction and the other side retaliates. Our support of Israel is also a thorn in their side.
We must not base our foreign policies on the likelihood of making terrorists angry. If we do they will threaten to get angry as a way of influencing our policies and politics. Our policies, both foreign and domestic, need to be in the interest of national defense with well defined goals and objectives. They should include considerations of cost and risk versus achievement and return.
Notice that the violence in Iraq has gone up since we left a few weeks ago. Your loving benevolent Muslims are busy killing each other in a power grab that we have been suppressing. We mustn't let the tail wag the dog.
We did have foreign military personnel here, at Williams Field. They were Saudi pilots in training a few years ago as part of a previous sale of F-15s, also to Saudi Arabia. I don't remember anyone being frightened.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 8:01 am on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
If you are sick and tired of seeing America becoming a 3rd World "Debtor" Nation and want to send a 100% American Patriot and ex-Military Officer to Washington D.C. to help straighten out that mess. Arizona's Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu is running for Congress in 2012. Check out his website.
www.sheriffpaul.com
Arizona Willie posted at 8:32 am on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
socratties -the question is what constitutes national interest.
Does getting oil and other materials cheaper constitute national interest?
Or does only a threat to our national security justify mucking about in other countries?
In my opinion the United States has too often interfered in other countries in order to obtain cheaper materials for our industries.
We have interfered another countries because we don't like their politics.
We have tried to force democracy on other countries that have no desire for it.
We can hardly blame other countries for resisting our interference.
For instance, it was reported this week that gasoline has become a big export from the United States. Would we tolerate the Chinese interfering to force us to sell them gasoline cheaper? If not, why should we expect other countries to accept our interfering in their business?
Why do we have military bases in so many countries? We have military bases in more than 150 countries!
Why?
The countries involved in World War II are not under a military threat from anyone.
How can we justify having our military basically occupying these countries?
In many of these countries are soldiers walk down the streets in uniform.
Are aircraft fly overhead.
How could that not be intimidating?
Our country has a history of " Gunboat Diplomacy ".
Our hands are not always clean in our past and present dealings with other countries.
We have done many things to many countries in the name of " National Interest " that were actually in the interest of some corporation or industry.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:32 am on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
Guys,
Joseph and to a lesser extent, Willie, know the score. Joe understands the cause and effect of our foreign policy blunders in the Middle East. Sure, calling those 15 Saudi Citizens who participated as martyrs on 9-11 "Freedom Fighters" was a poor choice of words. But as Joe sees it, they were fighting for freedom from foreign intervention, physical [military] and economic [ARAMCO promotion of crude oil interests] which have an impact on religious beliefs in their society. Want to know why those you call "terrorists" hate us so much that they become martyrs fighting as best they can for freedom from US?
When opposing national interests conflict, we expect wars between nations. But when national interests conflict with domestic interests, we see government upheaval, unless of course the domestic military is strong enough to keep those upheaval forces tranquilized. A study of history in the Middle East is a study of US and USSR involvement in foreign political and domestic affairs, supporting those governments whom each liked, this to achieve US and USSR foreign policy interests. And this involvement, called Hegemony, comes at a heavy price, a price which we are still paying.
Ron Paul is right on this issue. It's time to cut and run. We are at the root causes of most all Middle Eastern problems. "Mirror, Mirror on the wall, whose the fairest of them all?" It certainly ain't US!
sockratties posted at 11:17 am on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
AZWillie and Dale – I don't disagree with you. As I said, “Our policies, both foreign and domestic, need to be in the interest of national defense with well defined goals and objectives.” That doesn't mean that I think we should maintain troops all over the place or spend lives and resources for special interests. I do think the U.S. must be sure we're doing things that are in the interest of the U.S. and not being steered by threats (like Spain did). For example I believe AIPAC, the Israeli political action committee, manages to influence our support of Israel to a greater extent than is in U.S. interest.
AZWillie – I read that article, too. I wonder why Big Oil should be profiting from gas exports while our taxes are subsidizing ethanol production and oil exploration.
Dale – No matter if you agree with their justification or not, terrorists are still criminals and need to be attended to as such. I sympathize (but don't agree) with the concept of martyrs such as Japanese suicide pilots during WWII but they were flying military craft in a declared war against an armed enemy. There is no way to compare the cowards who flew commercial aircraft full of unarmed civilians into the twin towers in a sneak attack to kill even more innocents with any honorable martyr. The only martyrs involved there were the 1st responders who knew they were putting themselves in jeopardy and passengers on Flight 93. Everyone else were victims except the 19 highjackers who were criminals.
sockratties posted at 11:32 am on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
Gee Leon, when he get to Washington D. C. will he get to wear his uniform and have a lot of photo-ops like he does in Pinal County. I expect, if he is successful, you will see him consumed by the burocratic detritus just like the rest of them.
VofReason posted at 1:31 pm on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
Don't fall into the trap. Crazy Muslims do what they do because they think it is what they were born to do.
So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem. … For an indefinite future, however reluctantly, we must confine our political recognition to the professors of those religions which … preach the doctrine of “live and let live” (The Institutes of the Law of Nations, p. 124).
In other words, political recognition — with all the attendant negotiations and diplomacy that come with it — should be granted to all major religions/civilizations except Islam, which does not recognize the notion of “live and let live,” as evinced by, among other stipulations, the Koran’s commands to its adherents to “enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong,” (e.g., Koran 3:110), that is, enforce Sharia law upon the earth.
VofReason posted at 1:36 pm on Fri, Jan 6, 2012.
Too, the above logic of the article falls apart. If they were just like everyone else and were acting in retribution for percieved wrongs, why wouldn't they declare war on the US or Isreal or any other country.? They do not, they choose to blow up civilians on 9/11, civilians in Pizzeria's in Isreal, other Muslims who don't tow the line and gasp women who allow themselves to be raped or become educated.