"A Look At How Saudi Arabia Is Transforming Kosovo..." Topic
20 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Action Log
24 May 2016 3:27 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "Carlist Wars - Tortosa Brigade " to "A Look At How Saudi Arabia Is Transforming Kosovo..."
- Removed from Carlist Wars board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 21 May 2016 10:29 p.m. PST |
… Into A Radical Islamic State. "Extremist clerics and secretive associations funded by Saudis and others have transformed a once-tolerant Muslim society into a font of extremism. PRISTINA, Kosovo — Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an improvised mosque in a former furniture store. The mosque is one of scores built here with Saudi government money and blamed for spreading Wahhabism — the conservative ideology dominant in Saudi Arabia — in the 17 years since an American-led intervention wrested tiny Kosovo from Serbian oppression. Since then — much of that time under the watch of American officials — Saudi money and influence have transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at the hem of Europe into a font of Islamic extremism and a pipeline for jihadists…"
See here link And he same is happening in Bosnia…. link Amicalement Armand |
PMC317 | 21 May 2016 11:44 p.m. PST |
At what point do we stop kowtowing to the Saudis and treat them like the enemies they are? |
Jcfrog | 21 May 2016 11:49 p.m. PST |
Lots of clever, long sighted, people fought a war for this. They will only be taken for accounts by history. Some of those who went in this mafia " state" said "we" were on the wrong side. |
doug redshirt | 23 May 2016 5:01 p.m. PST |
Like I have repeatedly said, what other nation gets a pass when its citizens kill thousands of U.S. citizens? |
Mako11 | 23 May 2016 11:38 p.m. PST |
Several, I can think of, e.g. the Saudis and Iranians. |
Rod I Robertson | 23 May 2016 11:45 p.m. PST |
Mako 11: When did the Iranians kill thousands of Americans? Did I miss something? Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 24 May 2016 8:59 a.m. PST |
It is not surprising that the Saudis would try to create a flourishing islamic state in Eastern Europe. Kosovo has been full of moslems for centuries. That was one of the reasons for the conflict in that region. When did the Iranians kill thousands of Americans ? Let's start with their support of the Shia precursor to Hezbollah in 1983 Lebanon. Then all the support they gave the Iraqi Shia in GW II. Off the top of my head. It may not be 10s of thousands. But certainly around at least 2000 + Americans. Killed by Iranian backed, sponsored, assisted Shia in places like Lebanon and Iraq. So yes, Rod you did miss something … |
Rod I Robertson | 24 May 2016 9:37 a.m. PST |
Legion 4: Senator," Dunford responded, "I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that were killed by Iranian activities, and the number has been recently quoted as about 500. We weren't always able to attribute the casualties we had to Iranian activity, although many times we suspected it was Iranian activity even though we didn't necessarily have the forensics to support that." No proof! just suspicion in many cases. From: link Not thousands. However the US supported SAVAK did much worse to Iranians while Iran was an ally of the USA: Sources[who?] disagree over how many victims SAVAK had and how inhumane its techniques were. Writing at the time of the Shah's overthrow, TIME magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963-79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails." [25] From: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK When one adds in the Iranians killed by the US since 1979, the US backed Iran-Iraq War and the Iranians killed trying to 'stabilize' and maintain Iranian influence in Iraq after the US invasion of 2003, the number climbs to over 300,000 and could be as high as a million. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 24 May 2016 3:58 p.m. PST |
Yes, Rod I've heard that all before. Has there been an accurate accounting of all the US/Coalition troops killed in GWII with Iranian supplied weapons to the Shia militias ? They were using some weapons, explosives, etc., that could generally only be supplied by Iran. As Dunford said there was no way to tell at that time for sure. But I'd estimate at least 2000+ since '83. If you can post an estimate that the US may have killed 300,000 to a million Iranians. I can make my estimates too. When one adds in the Iranians killed by the US since 1979, the US backed Iran-Iraq War and the Iranians killed trying to 'stabilize' and maintain Iranian influence in Iraq after the US invasion of 2003, the number climbs to over 300,000 and could be as high as a million. If that is the case … the US is "winning" … I don't really care why the Iranians are enemies of the USA. But since they are, I really don't have much of a problem with those 300,000 to a million "estimated" Iranian losses … |
Legion 4 | 25 May 2016 9:29 a.m. PST |
No not to start a "dust up". But I can't let this pass. And I'll probably DH'd for it. But my SNIPPED comment alluded to Vlad Tepes {Dracula] who attempted to stop the Islamic Turks from pushing into parts of Romania. And converting those areas to islam. You either converted, paid fines or were put to the sword. We all know this. But why was my comment censured ? Because a Christian Force attempted to stop an Islamic force from invading their country ? In the 15 Century, where many of the Islamic invaders were killed by Christians ? Vlad's brutality was not really that uncommon at that time. And he also brutally ruled over his own people, etc. So would my comments upset a molsem because I said something in a humorous vane about the their invasion if Romania in the 15th Century ? And many moslems died. At the hands of "Dracula's" Christian force. But in the light of modern events ? Will we not be able to mention Charles "the Hammer" Martel's defeat of an Islamic force trying to spread islam into Western Europe. Resulting in a Christian force killing a large number of the invading moslem force. Or can I mention the Spanish brutally pushing out the Islamic Moors from Spain. And again a Christian Force killed many of the Islamic invaders ? When is it a "censurable" offense to accurately talk about a historical fact. Where a Christian force killed and defeated moslem invaders ? And say it in a less than serious manner . Is this a case pf Orwellian "NEW THINK" ? Change or deny the well known historical accepted facts. Should I be offend when at the Battle of Hattin during the Crusades. It is mentioned that an Islamic force brutally defeated a Christian Crusader force ? Or when an islamist force would behead their Knight's Templar prisoners ? Or will it offend non-Christians ? When talking about the Crusaders beheading 3000 or so molsems after capturing Acre ? Or Saladin's moslem laying siege to Jerusalem. Killing many Christians during that battle ? Where do we draw a line ? Where PC, etc., rules and ignores historical facts ? Come on … enough it enough. IMO … |
Legion 4 | 26 May 2016 7:19 a.m. PST |
Don't confuse anyone with facts … |
Rod I Robertson | 26 May 2016 10:28 a.m. PST |
Yes, Facts can upset those determined to achieve a goal or to promote an interest. Spin is often the preferred strategy. |
Legion 4 | 26 May 2016 3:14 p.m. PST |
I'd expect nothing less from Pie in the Sky/Rose Colored Glasses types like you Rod. [Is that DH'able offense saying that ? Well we'll see …] I think I will go with this response. RealpolitikRealpolitik is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. 'pursuing pragmatic policies' Too bad sometimes in the real world it works that way … Yes, Facts can upset those determined to achieve a goal or to promote an interest. Spin is often the preferred strategy.
"Spin" may sometimes be called propaganda or even disinformation. |
CFeicht | 26 May 2016 4:08 p.m. PST |
"Spin is often the preferred strategy." You use it often. |
Rod I Robertson | 26 May 2016 5:16 p.m. PST |
CFeitch: You are quite right. I do use rhetoric and persuasion in a public debate. I am biased and I make no attempt to cover that up. But the key difference is that I don't hide that fact. That is different from the manipulation done by the powers-that-be and their mouth-pieces who work to distort or deceive their audience rather then to persuade them. So, yes, guilty as charged. I do not hold to the fairness doctrine in public debate. Legion 4: You are entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine. The use of ad hominem attacks is annoying but not offensive, so I would not push the complaint button on you. However, I will point out that despite the wide gulf between your opinions and mine, I do not attempt to belittle or diminish you as a response to what you post here. The one time I felt I crossed that line I had myself DH'ed as a result. So if you want to call me pie in the sky or rose coloured glasses, go ahead, but perhaps it would be in everybody's best interests to attack my arguments and citations rather than my right to have an opinion and express it freely here. Just say'in. Cheers and cherry pie. Rosy Rod Robertson. |
Weasel | 27 May 2016 4:24 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 27 May 2016 7:12 a.m. PST |
"Spin is often the preferred strategy."You use it often. Many do … You are entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine. Never said otherwise … wide gulf between your opinions and mine, I do not attempt to belittle or diminish you as a response to what you post here. The one time I felt I crossed that line I had myself DH'ed as a result. I remember that most noble, magnanimous gesture. I am not so noble … You probably liken me to a "mini-Roper" type … So if you want to call me pie in the sky or rose coloured glasses, go ahead, but perhaps it would be in everybody's best interests to attack my arguments and citations rather than my right to have an opinion and express it freely here. In many cases, I have in the past and ended up saying the same things. Over and over again … Now … Where is that "beating a dead horse" icon ? cherry pie. I'm a fan of blueberry … And the icing on the cake … another of my comments was "SNIPPED" … again … Guess it's better than the dog house. Can't even remembered what I said ? |
Legion 4 | 27 May 2016 7:19 a.m. PST |
Weasel … I'm well aware that moslems serve in the US military. link In 2011 it was about 3500, today it is probably less. No matter really … .09 percent of the US population are moslems. So what are you trying to tell me ? Something I already know ? In the US ARMY … we were all Americans, and our skin color was "OD Green", as the saying went. I only know of two cases where US moslems in the US military killing/fraging other US troops. One was in GWI and of course we all know about what happened at Ft. Hood, TX. Both incidents are statistically insignificant. In comparison to overall numbers … |
|