BBC Whitewashes Saudi Support for AQ

He's one of the greatest comics in American history.

[video=youtube;dDw-zFFhFgc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDw-zFFhFgc[/video]

 

Yemen is full of radical (dangerous) groups... al Houthis, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab and assorted Somali pirates.

Unfortunately its always been a lawless place.. Don't you remember all the kidnappings in the 1980s or the civil war between the communists and the royals all thru the 1960s?

I think it was 2000 when I was in Asir, the SAG was building a fence in the mountainous border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

 

Saudi Arabia is fighting both ISIS and AQ.. haven't you noticed?

Only a nitwit who knows nothing about what is going on would claim they are.. There's no proof ... just idle speculation.

 

I haven't to be honest.

 

Some of the Arab Spring was genuine and some of it was manipulated by western governments to their advantage. Clearly, the CIA has been involved in subverting the Syrian government for some time, and the Arab Spring was a golden opportunity for them to destabilize Syria. Naturally, the Saudis were working hand-in-glove with them in these efforts.

 

Saudi Arabia didn't support the 9-11 terrorists.. and they don't support ISIS or AQ.

They did support AQ 30 years ago when AQ was fighting the US proxy war with the Soviets.

- - - Updated - - -

The Saudis have NO ambitions with regard to Syria.. They have lead a huge campaign to prevent young Saudis from going to Syria to fight for three years.. arrested them, frozen their assets.

 

And somehow the US government apologists never get around to calling for "regime change" in Saudi Arabia.

 

If the US government really cares about democracy and human rights as they claim to, then they should be calling for regime change in Saudi Arabia as well as Syria.

 

You make a valid point, but if some Americans really cared about America minding its own business and not interfering in other nations' affairs, they wouldn't be calling for regime change in Saudi Arabia, either.

Appeals to hypocrisy are a poor way to defend the continued existence of an illegitimate, rights-repressive regime in Syria.

 

Why should they call for regime change.. Saudi Arabia works.. The government is set up like a large corporation... Its peaceful, making steady progress and pro-American.

 

You just don't like the Saudi culture and tradition.. You think that women not driving is "oppression"... or that a tradition of modesty is oppression.

Would you legislate that Saudi women have to reveal themselves the way women do in the West.. Would you deny them their right to be modest?

 

I won't presume to call for regime change in Saudi Arabia or Syria until we get some much needed regime change right here in America.

I'm not defending their existence.

 

Peaceful?

76 people have been beheaded, from January 2014 to November 2014, by the authorities. And torture is a much used tool of oppression.

 

Wrong. The removal of Assad was initiated by Bibi Netanyahu in his Clean Break Strategy in 1996.. promoted by the neocons of the PNAC in 1998.. and then promoted by Bush in 2002.

- - - Updated - - -

Most American are far too ignorant about KSA to make a call.. they simply believe all the rubbish on the internet.

 

Glenn Greenwald gave the BBC credit for that interview.

I don't deny that western media does some objective journalism now and then, but the overarching tendency has been towards propagandizing their populations on behalf of western governments, and the BBC whitewashing of Saudi support for AQ in Syria is a prime example of such. One good interview isn't enough to make up for a torrent of propaganda.

 

The London bankers have been pulling strings behind the scenes for a long while now.

 

It's the same in America. Even though Saudi Arabia had the closet proximity to the 9/11 terror attacks, they have gotten a pass from the US government and their media lapdogs. And we're still waiting for the US government to declassify the 28 pages of the government report on 9/11 that surely implicates Saudi officials in the 9/11 attacks.

http://28pages.org/

 

Just remember, ousting Assad is about "democracy" and "human rights"...

 

Saudi supplies oil to much of the world. Turning it into another Syria would be like turning the US Great Plains breadbasket into Syria: hundreds of millions around the world would suffer. Arguing for regime change in Saudi is incredibly reckless at this time.

But if you are an enemy of the US, and/or you don't care that people around the world run their civilizations on oil, and cutting it off would be devastating, then you are all for promoting instability in Saudi.

 

I will be very pleased to read the 28 redacted pages..

 

Are you trying to suggest that the BBC lied about their source in the Saudi government? That they just made it up?

And if you had read the article properly, you would realize that the New York Times already did a report on the "Army of Conquest" that highlighted their connection to AQ in Syria. All the reader did was point this out to the BBC.

 

France should be bombing Saudi Arabia, not Syria. They're the ones giving money and arms to AQ/ISIS.

 

Western-backed rebels of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have rejected an offer of military support from Russia. An FSA spokesman told the BBC that Moscow could not be trusted and that its help was not needed. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday that Russia was ready to help the rebels if they attacked militants from the Islamic State (IS) group. Russia, a key ally of the Syrian government, has carried out air strikes in the country since last month. Moscow says the strikes have mainly targeted IS, but Western powers say most have hit the FSA and other factions backed by the West and Gulf states.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34632483

 

Did you read article and the sources provided therein? If so, then there is no reason you should be confused.

 

I read what you posted/quoted - A reader noticed "a contradiction", notified the BBC and it was changed.
There is nothing to suggest that the BBC didn't follow up to check that the report wasn't written incorrectly in the first place, or that facts were verified with the "unnamed source" after the fact, or anything else. All the article you posted, if it actually happened at all, was that "it changed". That doesn't automatically suggest "whitewash", not even as a first reaction. My first reaction is "correction", but you are suggesting that the BBC is suppressing information because of.... [fill in blank, I'm assuming your alluding to some pressure from government as they don't want to upset allies, which suggest in turn a conspiracy of some kind] ... but that makes no sense as this information could potentially be given to any news outlet that has no affiliation with SA allied governments, or doesn't bow to pressure.