From [url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/641571.asp?0dm=C18NN#BODY[/url]

[b]Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was making a mistake by not taking the money.
      “What I am saying is America has the right to defend itself,” he said, “but at the same time you have to understand the motives of the terrorists ... if you’re going to talk about terrorism, we have to look at the roots of it.”[/b]

When will these freaking people learn.  Terrorism happens because the terrorist choose the path of destruction, not because of USA policy.

sgtar15

PS Any li[b]bert[/b]arians going to debate this article??

I think it was more like "Take a carpet ride"

<<...understand the motives of the terrorists>>

and they can understand a B52.

yeah that jag off xxxx!

What a smart a$$

Guys I was over there during Desert Sheild and Storm, and I'm telling you from experience they are some condescending pricks at best.

Can anybody say, "Twinkie Defense"?

I may not like Zimbabwe's policy on zinc mining in the Ukraine. Or Belgium's attitudes towards the declining sperm count in rodents. Or Korea's stand on alien abductions. In fact, those things might piss me right the f**k off.

But none of that gives me any kind of justification to destroy lives the way these terrorists did. And quite frankly, their motives don't mean squat to me. All I care is that we stop them. We catch them. And we kill them.

And if that's the way that Prince feels, he's sounding an awful lot like a sympathizer with these terrorists.

He should have told that MF that the check was to be forwarded to the IDF.

My wife's  1st cousin is the wife of the top advisor for the Prince of Saudia Arbia.He's a pretty nice guy.however he made shure his wife and kids are US citizens.So if something happened to him his brother would not have any say.Oh were do you think there at now?Thats right in the U.S.

In case you haven't heard it lately, a much deserved, "Thank you."

It seems that oil money has given a nation of thugs the resources to be condscending pricks. I think it behooves us to do everything we can to move beyond the petroleum age. Pump R&D into fission, fusion, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, photovoltaic, hydroelectric.... Their lavish lifestyle is not going to last. And neither will their ability to be condescending pricks. And we won't have to kowtow to them to keep our energy supply going.

Well Prince Alwaleed, the plane you rode in here on is the one that can carry your worthless hide out.[:(!]

Lucky rich bastards are sitting on 25% of the oil reserves.  They should freeze the assets of Osomas relatives to show good faith.

O.K.... I know i will get flames for this so i have my nomex on....The Prince put his money wear his heart is but he has to cover his ass and not piss off the people he lives with. The Mayor was wrong! He didn't send the 10 million to Y Airfart did he?? No he tried to put it in New York. Now the Mayor has pissed off another arab with money...Not an extreemist but a good guy!.....

What I would like to know is, how come some foreigner can get a personally guided tour of the site, while me, as a NY state resident is disallowed to even be down there?

I would have taken the money from this prick!  Once I had secured the funds, then I would have shown them the door with my boot!  Use them for what they are, rich money bags.  It would have been nice to seen the 10 million go to work for those who needed the funds.

There's no middle ground in this conflict.  You said it perfectly "he has to cover his ass and not piss off the people he lives with".  Well that's fine, but he has a choice to wholly support us or not, none of this "here's some money, but it happened because you have a stupid policy in the middle east.  P.S. your media is brainwashing you."  He can take his smelly ass home.  We don't want his filthy money.  I like the suggestion of the guy who said we should pump money into R&D for non-petroleum power sources so these dirty bastards can't keep living the high life.

Sarge,
As a Libertarian / Juris-naturalist / Anarcho-Capitalist, I'll bite.  (that ought to cross your wires.....[:)])

Which part? That we shouldn't take the money (which we shouldn't)?  Or the quote?  If you mean the quote.... he is right. Cause and Effect.  Action - Reaction. It is that simple.

Does the Boston Tea Party ring a bell?

Zaz

Just because the Prince thinks he knows why the terrorists attacked us, and he is wrong, and he thinks it is because of our mideast policy, doesnt mean he is a bad guy! Have you ever got help from someone you did not totally agree with? The guy put his money were his heart is! and he also said we should find and punnish the perpetraitors of this crime... i still think the mayor was wrong....pat

You are completely wrong. For example, doctors should treat lung cancer only with cough medicine. If the symptom is dealt with the cause will go away.

I admit that it's been a [b]long[/b] time since my high school history classes so please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I don't recall ever learning about the American Revolutionaries killing 6,000 British loyalist civilians.

I assume you're [b]not[/b] saying that their reasons for doing it provide any sort of justification or that these actions should guide how we, as what I hope is still a sovereign nation, determine our foreign policy.

This isn't a question of whether the Prince is "someone you did not totally agree with" [i][sic][/i]

A much better analogy: A woman is savagely raped. An associate of the rapist gives the victim a check for a large sum of money and says, "He did a bad, bad thing. But it [b]was[/b] your fault." If you take the money, you're implicitly agreeing that it was your fault.

The expedient and perhaps pragmatic thing to do would have been to take the money. It could have done a lot of good. But integrity and morality are seldom about the expedient and pragmatic solutions.

My point is every act has 2 components.  Every deed has 2 sides.  To the Brits the Boston Tea Party was an act of "terrorism" or as they called it "barbarism"  To us it was a demonstration and act of revolution and war.

Do not think I am equatiing the severity of one to the other or using it as justification.  It is an example to soley illustrate the 'cause and effect' nature of things.



Well, you assume correct.  Striking a densely populated and denseless civilian target primarily for shcok value is not acceptable in any war.

The continued isistance of the Statist view that Libertarians somehow think there was justification for the WTC atrocity is pathetic.

Alright, this is getting really annoying.  When are you fucking people going to be able to draw a distinction between [i]causation[/i] and [i]justification[/i]???

Where did he say that any of these people deserved to die, or that these attacks were justified??  He didn't.  He said that the United States has to look at the CAUSES.  We need to stomp out terrorism, but we also need to stomp out the [i]reasons[/i] for terrorism.  New terrorists are born everyday.  The problem is, nobody wants to admit what the problem is.





Where the hell did Alwaleed say the attacks were a "moral equivalent"?  In fact, I don't think you can even argue that it is remotely implicit.  Don't you think that leaving my door unlocked is an issue that led to my house getting broken into?  Or that making fun of frat boys is an issue that led to me getting beaten by them?

Just another example show the rest of the world how far up the ass most Americans have their head.

The Prince wasn't trying to justify what happend.  He was trying to explain what happend from the Arab point of view.  The fact is a lot of Arabs hate America because of our support of Israel and almost no dealings with Palestine.  The Price said that US needs to re-examine policy there and the GW Bush is doing that.

We can kill every known terrorist that exists today.  But tomorrow when the Israelies shoot more people in Palestine, and American stands, there will be more Arabs that being hating America.  That is the root of the problem and that is what the Price was referring too.

America's reaction to him is the exact same as the anti-gunners reactions to guns.  Lets destroy all the guns or terrorists and the problems will go away, right?  Wrong, and the people here should know that better than everyone else.  A solution to a sympton, doesn't make the problem go away.

"and almost no dealings with Palestine."

i believe y. arafat has visited the white house more than any other head of state.

Nuke their ass and take their gas............

So how do you suggest we "stomp out the [i]reasons[/i] for terrorism"?

I'm reasonably sure that I (and most of the people here) do understand the difference between causation and justification. In fact,  it's easily inferred that it's the terrorists that don't make the distinction between the two.

Even if "leaving [your] door unlocked is an issue that led to [your] house getting broken into" [i][sic][/i], somebody had to commit the criminal act. Your oversight may have a contributory factor and play a role in causation but it is hardly the only factor. And it certainly doesn't make the interloper's actions any less criminal or absolve him of responsibility from any part in the causation of this crime. After all, he did have to decide to take advantage of that open door.

Even so, for the sake of argument, say that the open door was so enticing that an otherwise law abiding person was driven to larceny, your preventative remedy (keeping your door locked) is relatively simple and doesn't require you to betray yourself, your beliefs, your friends and family, etc.

What do you suggest that we do in this case? Unless I'm missing something, the Prince's statement says that he feels the causative factor of these terrorist acts is our foreign policy. Going back to the opening question of this post, to remove the cause of terrorism, do we now alter our foreign policy to something more palatable to these terrorists? And if so, how do we do something like that without making it an open invitation to all future terrorists to rule US policy on [b]any[/b] issue through the terrorism?

Let's look at the situation from something that we all can related to.  Bill Clinton's anti-gun policies while he was in office offended every person on this board, causing a lot of people here to have very negative feeling towards him.  It even got to the point where there were pro-gun rallies to show that we didn't like what he was doing.

Now if his policies which took away a couple of our guns and make us dependent on the NICs system gets us that upset.  How upset do you think people in the Arab world would be if they think the US government is partially to blame for other Arabs being killed, either by US or Israeli action?  I know what the extreamist groups in the US did when WACO happend, they blew up a building.  Now if the US had gone out and destroyed every so called militia, do you think that would have stopped the problem or made it worse?  Without getting to the root of the problem, the problem will get worse.

When the United States and the U.N. stop allowing Israel to bulldoze Palestinian villages or shoot rock-throwers.  Look at the death counts.  They can do whatever they want, but not with my fucking tax dollars.  This has been argued over and over.  Most of Europe is "free", and the U.K. is very much like the U.S. as far as women's freedoms, economic status, etc.  But who are the Arabs angry with?  The U.S.A.  Why?  Because we support a country like Israel who gives us [b]absolutely nothing[/b] that we couldn't get from Jordan, Egypt, etc. if we stopped waving our dick in everybody's faces.  And beyond that, don't get me started on the hipocracy of us being upset over "human rights violations".  Please, shooting unarmed protesters with live rounds???  If the Chinese, Cubans, etc. did this we'd be up in arms.  But never underestimate the effectiveness of a Jewish controlled media.

Rallies are one thing. In fact, it is not only our right to have rallies, but it is also our responsibility to have rallies. Such a responsibility is incumbent upon us if we expect to be a nation governed by the will of its people.
Furthermore, it's my understanding that there are several anti-US rallies in countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia. I say, "More power to them." I, of course, disagree with them. But I support and encourage their right to express their opinions toward us.



I think they would have justification for being very upset with any government responsible for killing their people -- just as we do. Which Arabs were the US killing prior to the attack on the US? Perhaps Desert Storm? That was a military action precipitated by the acts of one Arab against another, largely supported by the Arab community. So I'm not sure that one really does it.
And if my memory of ancient history serves me, Arabs & Israelis (Jews) have been killing [b]each other[/b] for millenia. Now, somehow, it's our responsibility, but only when it's Israelis killing Arabs? So if your friend backs over his neighbor's dog, you'll be responsible for all the legal fees?



Again, I hear phrases like "the root of the problem" without anyone coming out and saying what it is and how to solve it. What is it that you consider to be "the root of the problem" and what are the solutions to that problem. The Prince specifically mentions our policy towards Israel. But even bin Laden said that his hatred of America was, at least in part, due to Desert Storm and our presence on the Prince's [Saudi] soil. So by protecting the sovereign interests of one Arab country against another, we've incurred the wrath of another Arab because we (as infidels) stood on what he considers to be holy soil.

I concede that perhaps I "just don't get it" but I don't see how any aspect of US Foreign Policy that could even be remotely described as causative in this situation can be changed without it becoming an acknowledgement that terror is a viable tool of diplomacy.

I would`ve taken the $$$ THEN told him to fuck off..........[stick].........HEY PRINCIE......take a C5 ride home.....WITH HALF A LOAD OF PIGS!!!.......[devil]

PYamasaki you're welcome I would do it again if called upon.  Now something perhaps you people may have missed, this hatred goes much deeper than our foreign policy with Israel.  If you watched the tapes that Bin Laden released shortly after attacks began in Afganistan you would have picked up the first thing he said.  Which was a diatribe about how the Spainards(Christians) ran the Moors(Muslims) out of Spain several hundred years ago now this ought to tell you how far this issue stretchs.  He wants nothing more than to bring the West under Islamic law, and these people will never stop until they are destroyed or accomplish their goal.  If you wish to play tiddly winks with them fine, if you want to pursue diplomacy fine, but never misunderstand that they are playing for keeps, they will kill your wife, your son, your daughter, your friends.  This is what they bring, you can talk about cause and effect til your blue in the face, you can feed them, you can clothe them but you will never win them over.  My suggestion is you prepare to wage war, no quarter asked, none given.  This is what they understand.

The real question is what is wrong with the Prince's gift? He doesn't agree with our mideast policy, but put up 10 mil to show he realy doesn't agree with obl. So what is wrong with that???

Well said.  I think people don't realize that bin laden has only very recently began vocalizing his outrage at the "israeli/palestinian" conflict.  Our policies on israel are not what pissed him off, as he was killing americans long before he said anything about it.

CIB... if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were/are senior enlisted. You just motivated more than I was before to blow the *p00p* outa some Afghanis.

But personally, (because I'm a greedy something or the other) I would have taken the money and kicked `em squa in da nuttz. (Yes, Cartman like even)

he really should have kept the money..and spent it on weapons.  I would have gladly done the shopping.

Dear Prince fuck you very much !!!
Your magic carpet is waiting for you to take you back to the kingdom.

ET3, used to be Army Infantry.  Since all this has happened, it's brought back the military mindset I guess.  But the point is [i]cause[/i] no longer matters, at some point people have to wake up and realize civility has no place in war except to get you killed.  Civialians die in war that is it's nature, no matter how ugly it is you must look it squarely in the eye and walk past, if you stop or look away then you've lost sight of your objective and that will get you killed.

Ah, you mean like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.