No one forces terrorists to terrorize. Therefore donating no-strings-attached monetary aid to terrorists is not to blame for acts of terrorism, correct?

I'm merely forming an analogous argument to yours: mine is in support of subsidizing terrorists, yours is in support of subsidizing systematic violators of human rights. If you can point out why the analogy is not valid, please do so.

Re: your edit: at issue is not that the US purchases goods from the Saudis (though it could be argued that we have a moral obligation to impose an embargo), but rather, as the parent of your post suggested, that the US subsidizes artificially low oil prices from the region.

It breaks down because our government exists to serve us, not the Saudis. Supporting terrorists is obviously 100% bad for us. Supporting cheap oil, while maybe not 100% good, certainly is an easier argument to make. Would we prefer they didn't put their women in de facto slavery? Of course. Does it effect us? No. Would a rebel govt that disrupts oil production effect us? Yes.

But if you're profiting from the fact that exactly because those women are oppressed, you can have cheap oil (thus cheap car, cheap iPhone, cheap internet, etc.), don't you feel that as a human being, it's your duty to protest? Especially since if you do, you won't be sentenced to prison, torture or death (as those poor women would if they protested) because you have the privilege of living in a free, democratic country?

That's why we ended the profitable business of slavery, after all.

We aren't profiting because they are oppressed. They are being oppressed and we aren't actively speaking out against it. Those are different things. This is the same BS we see all the time in America. People need to take personal responsibility. These women are being oppressed by the Saudi government. America hasn't helped them, but that doesn't make it our fault.

I'm fine with arguing that America should do something to help all oppressed people in the world (I don't think it's possible or should be done) but you can make that argument. You can't say it's our fault for not stopping it.

I disagree. By buying oil and selling arms, they are helping them.

In case you aren't aware, Taliban and Mujahadeen were US allies in Afghanistan. And by ally, I mean really ally. They fought together against the Soviets. US was giving them weapons and aid. In a trip to Afghanistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Advisor) called the Mujahadeen and Taliban (the same guys that were treating women like trash), "Soldiers of God" and told then

    We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their
    struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours and you’ll
    go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll
    have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right,
    and god is on your side.

Watch it on video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4lf0RT72iw

Or, if you have time, watch this episode of the terrific CNN documentary (Cold War, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIU0e23ZTcU

So, in essence: yes, US helped Mujahadeen, Taliban, Saudies and others. And people in the west are profiting from that.

I don't agree with everything these two article says, but at least watch the pictures:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-dev...

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/23860

Just look at this picture: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/reaganandmujahi... - It's US president Ronald Reagan with some ass-backward, woman-beating fucks in the White House... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA

What I said was that American hasn't helped the women. Obviously they have helped the Saudi govt. That doesn't make them responsible for it.

It is very easy to argue that the US would be worse off if a rebel govt made Saudi Arabia unstable. It is not the US's fault that the govt that helps our goals also does bad things.

Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with you arguing we should do something about the oppression, and that we shouldn't be helping the current government. I'm not ok with saying it is our fault they are being oppressed. Just because we could do something about it, doesn't make it our fault.

If Joe shoots Tim, is it your fault because you didn't stop Joe? No. It's Joe's fault. He's the murderer. The Saudi govt are oppressing the women, and it's the Saudi govt's fault that the women are oppressed. By all means argue for doing something about it, but don't shift the blame where it isn't due.

> If Joe shoots Tim, is it your fault because you didn't stop Joe?

If you're a friend and supporter of Joe's, you testify that he's a good man in the court (or United Nations), if you elected a government that gave Joe the weapon, if you profited from Tim being killed, then yes, you're also guilty. You've basically delegated the dirty job of "finding cheap oil by any means necessary so I can have an easier life" to Joe.

I'm not saying you should be the world's police; what I'm saying is if you profit from others being oppressed (so the oppressor can sell you oil cheaper so you can have a better life), it's your duty as a human being to try to change things for your brother.

Of course, if you're not profiting from that oppression, or aren't supporting the oppressor, then it's NOT your duty but still it would be nice to intervene.

> ... don't shift the blame where it isn't due.

Not at all. Those dictators are guilty of all those crimes. No one's arguing against that.

I don't think we are that far off here, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't we are profiting from them being oppressive. We are profiting from a stable govt. I'm not convinced that random rebels (who are also Muslim) are going to be a huge improvement for women.

Maybe we should ask the current govt to improve themselves as part of our sales and aid, but I don't think that makes us responsible. The point is that the act of them oppressing women does not in any way shape or form help us. Stable govt helps us, and the current govt happens to be oppressive. That's where your argument breaks down. Killing Tim is not helping us profit. It's just happening, and we aren't stopping it. That's very different from that act helping us. We'd be perfectly fine with the current stable govt not being oppressive.

Then why are American's crying about China's human rights violations and imposing sanctions against them ?

what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize.

What do governments exist to do? To govern.

There are all sorts of choices to make about how to govern, many of which do not oppress the people.

Any form of terrorism by its nature will harm people.

So it's not really analogous.

In no way is the source of the oppression the US, or Europe, or China. The source of the oppression is the Saudi government.

> what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize.

Seriously?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There is always an agenda, and terrorism is merely a means to an end that frustrated and (usually) deeply disturbed human beings turn to when they see no other viable course of action.

> One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

People say this a lot, but actually one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist. Legitimizing targeting civilians as "freedom fighting" is horrible.

If you actually fight for freedom, then freedom is the goal. But the goal of a terrorist is killing.

Somebody should help terrorists choose names for their organizations, then:

  - PLO = Palestine Liberation Front

  - ETA = Basque Homeland and Freedom

  - IRA = Irish Republican Army

etc. I would call someone whose goal is killing a soldier or a murderer. IMO, the reason terrorists kill civilians is the same as why, in a dispute between two children of largely different strength, the one who is verbally weakest will start fighting, and the one who is physically weakest then will start fighting dirty (biting, nail scratching, hair pulling, etc)

Some would say that being buddies with these rulers (Bush (Sr. and Jr.) and Saudies were close friends and allies), buying oil and selling arms is exactly what enables KSA and co. to be "oppressive".