• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

About Syria, the Moderate Opposition and Democracy

Do you believe the consequences of U.S policies in the Middle East are destabilizing the region?

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
stan1990 said:
What about poisoning the water of the city of Flint to save a few dollars on the water delivery system? Is this violation of international law in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Not at all similar to what Saddam did. Not only is that a whataboutism, it's a pathetically bad one; the US government didn't deliberately poison Flint's water to kill as people as possible. Saddam, on the other hand, used chemical weapons---a literal violation of international law to try and kill as many Kurds as possible.
 
stan1990 said:
Not true, the American system in its core is some form of a military junta
Click to expand...

:lamo

Yeah, that's a load of crap. The American military prides itself on not being political in any way, shape or form, and actively serving officers who get involved in politics get in a world of ****.
 
Fledermaus said:
You are ignorant of the difference between the Saudi Government and the Wahhabi sect.
Click to expand...

Could you explain what this means?

It is my understanding that Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, that they fund the spread of Wahhabism worldwide, and that the House of Saud and the followers of Ibn Wahhab have been in a close alliance since the 18th century.

While I am aware that some radical forms of political Islamism could potentially be a threat to the House of Saud (In that the establishment of an actual Caliphate would seem to conflict with allegiance to any existing royal family), I have not seen anything that would suggest any difference of opinion between the House of Saud and the Wahhabists...
 
PersianCavalry said:
Could you explain what this means?

It is my understanding that Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, that they fund the spread of Wahhabism worldwide, and that the House of Saud and the followers of Ibn Wahhab have been in a close alliance since the 18th century.

While I am aware that some radical forms of political Islamism could potentially be a threat to the House of Saud (In that the establishment of an actual Caliphate would seem to conflict with allegiance to any existing royal family), I have not seen anything that would suggest any difference of opinion between the House of Saud and the Wahhabists...
Click to expand...

Wahhabism is the state religion of the state of Saudi Arabia but not exactly of the House of Saud. .

The house of Saud did not willingly adopt Wahhabism and only honors it as a political necessity. Essentially they have been allied for decades. On the other hand the House of Saud also has defied Wahhabism in modernizing, relations with Non Muslim and "wrong" Muslim countries, etc. The House of Saud also ran afoul of Wahhabism during the rise of prosperity due to the oil boom. Saudi elite with their stable of Rolls Royces and jaunts to Monte Carlo to blow a gazillion bucks and other such antics were at odds with Wahhabi beliefs.
 
Fledermaus said:
Wahhabism is the state religion of the state of Saudi Arabia but not exactly of the House of Saud. .

The house of Saud did not willingly adopt Wahhabism and only honors it as a political necessity. Essentially they have been allied for decades. On the other hand the House of Saud also has defied Wahhabism in modernizing, relations with Non Muslim and "wrong" Muslim countries, etc. The House of Saud also ran afoul of Wahhabism during the rise of prosperity due to the oil boom. Saudi elite with their stable of Rolls Royces and jaunts to Monte Carlo to blow a gazillion bucks and other such antics were at odds with Wahhabi beliefs.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough, I see. Yup, in that case I can agree. There will always be some degree of tension between rather decadent rulers of the state (house of Saud) versus hardline religious extremists like the Wahhabis who are going for fanatical "purity" and can't stand anything that wasn't invented in the 7th century.
 
PersianCavalry said:
Ok fair enough, I see. Yup, in that case I can agree. There will always be some degree of tension between rather decadent rulers of the state (house of Saud) versus hardline religious extremists like the Wahhabis who are going for fanatical "purity" and can't stand anything that wasn't invented in the 7th century.
Click to expand...

IIRC the Wahhabis even condemned telegraph and telephone communications.

King Faisal was at the forefront of modernizing and ended up dead...
 
Don't underestimate the House of Saud's zealotry. The Kingdom finances and builds mosque's all over the world and staffs these with Wahhabi-trained clerics. The Kingdom also owns printing/publication/distribution facilities that churn out copies of the Koran (with Wahhabi annotations) in virtually every language. The House of Saud is not an innocent bystander in the global spread of radical Sunni Islam.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Don't underestimate the House of Saud's zealotry. The Kingdom finances and builds mosque's all over the world and staffs these with Wahhabi-trained clerics. The Kingdom also owns printing/publication/distribution facilities that churn out copies of the Koran (with Wahhabi annotations) in virtually every language. The House of Saud is not an innocent bystander in the global spread of radical Sunni Islam.
Click to expand...

Also correct.

They benefit from the Wahhabi connection because they use it to legitimate their rule; but it is a double edged sword. The monster they have created, could just as easily turn on them if things start going wrong. It's a delicate balancing act, and some have predicted that the coming downfall of the House of Saud could be the result.
 
Tigerace117 said:
:lamo

Yeah, that's a load of crap. The American military prides itself on not being political in any way, shape or form, and actively serving officers who get involved in politics get in a world of ****.
Click to expand...

The load of crap is what you are writing.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Not at all similar to what Saddam did. Not only is that a whataboutism, it's a pathetically bad one; the US government didn't deliberately poison Flint's water to kill as people as possible. Saddam, on the other hand, used chemical weapons---a literal violation of international law to try and kill as many Kurds as possible.
Click to expand...

Actually, they did know that their action will end in poisoning Flint water supply. Why the problem isn't resolved until now anyway.
 
stan1990 said:
Actually, they did know that their action will end in poisoning Flint water supply. Why the problem isn't resolved until now anyway.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Got any evidence to back up that claim?

Coming from a guy who defends using chemical weapons on civilians you have no room to criticize anyone else’s government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom