The case of Jamal Khashoggi

by LoveUniHateExams 46 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    I exclude Israel, because if you include Israel, it all becomes murky. Almost every Arab terrorist group tries to attack Israel and every purported Arab terrorist group is accused of attacking them, so you end up in an endless downward spiral trying to resolve responsibility.

    Which is why you shouldn't bother. It's one big shit hole of terrorism and dysfunction and picking a side to be on is stupid. None of these people are on our side, they just want some idiots they can use to further their own goals and fight on their behalf. If they can con people into a war, they are happy. The Iraq war should have taught us that. The funny thing is that often, "we" think that we are using "them" ...

    That's why when one of these idiots is killed by another group of those idiots we should give a big collective "meh" and turn the channel over.

    The people promoting "journalist" are just using it because they think it can be a stick to attack Trump with. That's how low and pathetic they are - what do they want? Us to go to war? How many people have to die because some islamists are constantly at war?

    they are anti iran and allies with isreal and that makes their interests good for the rest of the world.

    Don't fall for the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". That doesn't apply here. Iran and Saudi Arabia are just factions of the same terrorist cult fighting each other. The only assistance they should be given is to wipe out each other's extremists.

  • _Morpheus
    Morph - Conflating the MB with Osama bin Laden shows a very shallow understanding of Islamism.
    Saudi was the primary target of bin Laden's anger.

    😂 your inablity to read and comprehend my plain english remarks shows why you shouldnt bother adults when they are talking .

  • Queequeg

    Lol! Strong words from a guy who regularly mutilates the English language.

  • shepherdless

    Morph, I can't speak for Cofty, however, Osama was first and foremost seeking the overthrow of the Saudi ruling family. (He seemed to be completely uninterested in the Palestinian cause, by the way.) On that point, Khashoggi, OBL, the Brotherhood and many others seem to agree.

    OBL seemed to think that the Saudi royal family could only hold power with the active support of USA. (There are many, including non-Muslims who think the same, by the way.) What made OBL unique was that he thought that a terrorist attack on USA constituted a legitimate tactic in the overthrow the Saudi royal family.

  • _Morpheus

    Shep, if i have to explain why iran and the mullahs are bad actors on the world stage, being sponsors of terror and all, then im not going to waste breath on it.

    You admit the brotherhood calls for violent overthrow and then say ‘meh they all do’. I cant help you there either.

    And as for who calls them a terror org... me. I did.... or do you also lack reading comprehension? If your suggesting im wrong thats your prerogative, of course, but, having admitted you know they call for violent overthrow of a government, you would obviously be ignorant as to the clearly text book nature of their mission and the accepted use of the term “terror organization”.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    @Shepherdless - it's difficult to say whether Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist group or not.

    But, clearly, MB are bad news. They want the overthrow of the West and plan to use our democracy against us in order to implement Sharia.

    Their views on gays, women, atheists, apostates and Hindus are antediluvian.

    All of which makes it strange that Khashoggi can join that group or even just flirt with some of its ideas and still be a darling of the liberal media.

    And you didn't answer my question about when Khashoggi left the MB - almost as if you don't think it matters.

    Western youth smoke weed and fuck ... Arab youth join the MB. What's the big deal, dawg?

    Liberal double standards make me want to throw up sometimes.

    It's a clear and unfortunate case of "one rule for wypipo ..."

  • _Morpheus
    Morph, I can't speak for Cofty, however, Osama was first and foremost seeking the overthrow of the Saudi ruling family

    For Thors sake where do you people “learn” things? The ignorance is astounding, although tragically, not surprising.

    osamas stated issues were Americas support of isreal and the military presence in saudia arabia. If you disagree, talk it up with him, if you can pull him away from his 77 virgins. Thats what he said.

    Im lost as to why we are stuck on him beyond me pointing out that he and khashoggi were pals. I cited an article (there are many) that proved my point. Perhaps i should spell out for the less literate among us:

    al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood are different. Bin laden was the nominal force behind al qaeda. Bad guys. Terrorists.

    The muslim brotherhood are also bad guys. They are terrorists, support terrorists and want run the world as islam would make it.

    Two different sets of bad guys with the same end result as a goal.

  • cofty

    Morph every time you go off on a topic, you screw up. When it is pointed out to you, your tactic is to throw out childish insults and double-down on your ignorance. You have become the most obnoxious person on the forum.

    My knowledge of the history of Islamism is considerable. Shep is an expert from personal knowledge of the ME. As usual you are only interested in displaying your ignorance at the top of your voice.

  • Queequeg

    saudia arabia? Ignorance? Just sayin' buddy...

  • cofty


Share this