BBC Whitewashes Saudi Support for AQ

Of course, things are never simply black and white.

[video=youtube;Gi5z4M5dm4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi5z4M5dm4o[/video]

 

Your video is not available in the US..

 

The guy is a crackpot and a Holocaust denier who lives in the US.

The British had NOTHING to do with Saudi Arabia and no presence there .. Even Sinjin Philby turned on them and became a Muslim.

This is that stupid Hempher story.. Its like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.. and you fell for it.

 

The "Memoirs" claim that Hempher travelled to Basra in 1712 and there met Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, a student who spoke Turkish, Persian and Arabic.

In fact, ibn Abdul Wahhab, born in 1115 AH (1703/1704 CE), would have been 9 or 10 years old and living in his native region of Najd at that time, since he did not leave Najd, except for hajj, to "travel to seek knowledge until 1722.

Sorry Serfer, you have fallen for a lie.. but it the same with that crap Radio Cairo broadcast all thru the 1960s claiming the al Saud were really Jews.

 

Refreshing to actually witness a journalist worthy of the name.

 

This one needs volume:

[video=youtube;GDneCe-UFvc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDneCe-UFvc[/video]

 

The message says "not available in your country".

 

Sorry can't help you. It is on Youtube, and the UK only restriction doesn't apply as I am in Ireland, and we can't access most BBC online recordings.

 

This thread is about Saudi support for AQ in Syria, so the "shouting against Saudi" is literally right on front of you.

 

I don't know if you've heard of him, but I read Finian Cunningham, among others. He's an Irish journalist. Very sharp.

 

I think UK have learned its lesson no longer do they need to be directly involved they just have to be the leading manipulator behind the scene.

 

Almost a jaw dropping at the Michael Howard - Jeremy Paxman Newsnight interview in 1997, where Howard refused to answer Paxman's direct question 12 times - a performance that led to the derailing of Howard's career.

 

Successive British governments have been corruptly twisted in regards to Saudi. Especially the infamous Al-Yamamah arms deal signed off by Margaret Thatcher, where the kickbacks included millions to her son, Mark. This rank deal has also seen all sorts of investigations in the UK brought to a shuddering halt following extreme Saudi pressure.

For those who wish to read about the corruption behind this deal see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

I have stored away in my archive hundreds of pages of Saudi government and Saudi royal letter-headed letters and documents concerning a wide range of deals. In the final analysis they are corrupt and rotten to the core. But they have the British political and business establishment by the short and hairy's, due to ongoing greed and corruption.

 

30 years ago and you have hardcopy documents?

 

Hard copies I was given in late 1990's.

 

It's not even a question at this point of who is providing aid to AQ and ISIS. They are proxies being used by western governments and their allies to further isolate and destabilize Russia and its allies. The only people who deny it at this point are mindless nationalists who emotionally and culturally identify with the central governments in their country. In their warped world, an attack on the US central government is an attack on their own person, so they feel the need to rush to its defense regardless of the facts or the logic of the situation.

 

If you say it's not true, then it's probably true.

 

It's those Saudis again - one of America's most loyal allies are on the head chopping crusade once again. Very little changed in Saudi heads since 1800's.

A New Book Reveals the Horrifying, and Fascinating, Details of Daily Life Under ISIS
It details all of Isis’s cruelty, but places it in the context of a very bloody history
by Robert Fisk

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...and-fascinating-details-daily-life-under-isis

 

This doesn't prove your assertion. If one reads carefully, there are only two people who tell us something we didn't already know: an "anonymous Saudi official", and "a BBC reader".

The BBC acts on information from these two "sources". One cannot conclude anything whatsoever on governments' actions from this article. Why say that it does?

 

Except for targets to bomb, and bombs cost lots of money, don't they?

 

... yes, but tax money = can be wasted as usual. No matter if this money is used for 20 bombs or for 20 golden toilets inside ministries ... wasted is wasted.

 

It is all a matter of context. The long term scratch my back effect, if you will.

 

Even the terrorist group that murdered 3,000 American civilians?

He has millions of supporters, including Sunnis, so ISIS is going to have to kill lots of people, including innocent women and children, in order to oust Assad. Kind of ironic considering the alleged motivations underlying the rebellion in Syria, i.e., the Assad government brutalized innocent people.

What a trite thing to say, especially when supporting evil, murdering psychopaths totally undermines your attempts to assume the moral high-ground in the Syrian war.

 

Voting at all helps to perpetuate the authoritarian system of so-called "representative democracy". The idea that the system can be changed through the electoral mechanisms it has put in place doesn't seem very logical.

 

I'm confused; what evidence is there that they changed a story to fit with a certain criteria rather than just updating the story as the information changed in real time? If it was changed at all, that is.