Saudis lament, 'we have been stabbed in the back by Obama'

[jimnyc]

It was a very short time ago that we were all told that Obama needed to go around the world and fix tattered relations with our allies. Here we are now, making nice with Iran and pissing off the Saudi's.

I don't know if I lay this all on his stupid shoulders, or towards the Democrats in general who have lied, sidestepped, dodged and flaunted the law and their words for a long, long time now.


Arabs don’t trust Obama either.

As 2013 ends, President Obama has lost credibility with many people who trusted him at the start of the year. Thanks to the Healthcare.gov debacle, polls find support for the president among women and independents has dropped to the lowest ebb of his presidency. Obama's words -- promising Americans they could keep their doctors under his health care plan -- didn’t match his deeds.

Surprisingly, the same thing is happening on the other side of the world among Arabs in the Middle East and for the same reason.

Too often, Obama’s speeches and actions don’t match.

"We are glad the Americans are here," said Ahmed al-Ibrahim, an adviser to some of Saudi Arabia's royals and officials, when I met with him recently, "but we fear that the president has lost credibility after Syria."

The Saudi official is referring to Obama’s “red line” vow of military action if the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad did and Obama didn’t. Saudi officials were stunned.

Next came the revelation earlier this year that Obama was secretly negotiating with Iran, the mortal enemy of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials in both nations have told me that they simply don't believe that the president can sweet-talk the mullahs out of the weapons they have coveted for years.

“The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years," al-Ibrahim said. "We feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama."

"Every time that Obama had to choose between his enemies and his friends, he always chose his enemies," he said. "We don't know what he's putting in his tea."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/27/saudis-lament-have-been-stabbed-in-back-by-obama/

[Gaffer]

I bet they regret funding his education now. Some of those foreign donations might dry up too.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I bet they regret funding his education now. Some of those foreign donations might dry up too. The Saudis are not with the radical program and coming Caliphate that Obama envisions will go to the nuked up Iran! The lying, traitorous bampunk stabbing them in the back is just par for the course. He only owes allegiance to Allah not to man. What most do not get is he is muslim and hiding it. Which is allowed in Islam, even highly praised tactic to advance Islam and win. The two vying for the top spot in the Caliphate are the Saudis and the Iranians. Appears Obama is going with the boys that he is going to make damn sure get nuke bombs!-- Tyr

[bingster]

The Saudis are not with the radical program and coming Caliphate that Obama envisions will go to the nuked up Iran! The lying, traitorous bampunk stabbing them in the back is just par for the course. He only owes allegiance to Allah not to man. What most do not get is he is muslim and hiding it. Which is allowed in Islam, even highly praised tactic to advance Islam and win. The two vying for the top spot in the Caliphate are the Saudis and the Iranians. Appears Obama is going with the boys that he is going to make damn sure get nuke bombs!-- Tyr


I've been off and on this site for almost a year now, and I have yet to see one scrap of intellignece from one post of yours. That looked like a watered down, taken out of context, and completely off subject Glenn Beck rant. Actually, I'm being insulting to Glenn.

If Obama's allegience was to islam, how could he be purposely pissing off the saudi's? And since when have the cons been on the saudi's side? Don't the most ignorant among you think Obama "He's an arab"?

Your talking points are all over the place. Cons need to shut up about foregn affairs anymore. There isn't one country that you have stood consistant on, you're just against Obama. You get mad when he allows Musad to fall, but then are mad that he doesn't support the ones who fell him, or you are mad that he die, or....whatever, it changes everyday.

I say let's bring our boys home. Let the world of Islam blow themselves up.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've been off and on this site for almost a year now, and I have yet to see one scrap of intellignece from one post of yours. That looked like a watered down, taken out of context, and completely off subject Glenn Beck rant. Actually, I'm being insulting to Glenn.

If Obama's allegience was to islam, how could he be purposely pissing off the saudi's? And since when have the cons been on the saudi's side? Don't the most ignorant among you think Obama "He's an arab"?

Your talking points are all over the place. Cons need to shut up about foregn affairs anymore. There isn't one country that you have stood consistant on, you're just against Obama. You get mad when he allows Musad to fall, but then are mad that he doesn't support the ones who fell him, or you are mad that he die, or....whatever, it changes everyday.

I say let's bring our boys home. Let the world of Islam blow themselves up. I would be offended if I thought you were anything above dumbass level. SINCE I DONT THEN YOUR POST RATES AS AMUSING TRY AT PROVING YOUR ARE SOMEHOW BRLLIANT. :laugh::laugh::laugh:-Tyr

[jafar00]

One thing about the Iran issue that is neglected is that friendly relations need to be established for Iran to further open up about their nuclear program. An antagonistic approach only makes them move stuff far underground where nobody can touch it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One thing about the Iran issue that is neglected is that friendly relations need to be established for Iran to further open up about their nuclear program. An antagonistic approach only makes them move stuff far underground where nobody can touch it. I see, you mean friendly as in appeasement. Yes, we've seen how well that works with muslims as its a sign of great weakness and inspires them to ever greater opposition. That is what more and more Americans are now waking up to . So by your advice in their zeal to destroy Israel first and the USA second we should try to sweet talk them out of it!!! Utterly naïve and ridiculous IMHO. -Tyr

[Drummond]

One thing about the Iran issue that is neglected is that friendly relations need to be established for Iran to further open up about their nuclear program. An antagonistic approach only makes them move stuff far underground where nobody can touch it.

Such an approach defers altogether too much to the Iranian regime, giving them too much say in the pace and extent of progress made. Considering their 'wipe Israel off the map' Holocaustal threat from years ago .. and the 'inexplicable' insistence Iran has in saying it wants a method of power generation it cannot possibly need, yet from a technology that 'so happens' to lend itself to the completion of such a threat .. it's surely madness to think of deferring further to an aggressor power.

Besides, all this wastes yet more time - as if enough hasn't already been wasted !! No, I think the exact opposite approach is called for - show strength, not an appearance of weakness.

[Gaffer]

One thing about the Iran issue that is neglected is that friendly relations need to be established for Iran to further open up about their nuclear program. An antagonistic approach only makes them move stuff far underground where nobody can touch it.

An immediate military approach ends the threat before it can be moved underground or used. The saud's would applaud this action. They don't like their position as elite muslims threatened by a bunch of shia.

I suspect any release of prisoners or other conditions met by Israel concerning the pals is not to appease kerry, but to appease the sauds. A certain amount or time in the air over saudi or even a refueling point. It's a win win for both the sauds and the Israelis since iran is a threat to both of them.

[revelarts]

The Saudis are not with the radical program and coming Caliphate that Obama envisions will go to the nuked up Iran! The lying, traitorous bampunk stabbing them in the back is just par for the course. He only owes allegiance to Allah not to man. What most do not get is he is muslim and hiding it. Which is allowed in Islam, even highly praised tactic to advance Islam and win. The two vying for the top spot in the Caliphate are the Saudis and the Iranians. Appears Obama is going with the boys that he is going to make damn sure get nuke bombs!-- Tyr

Tyr all due respect, do you have any proof for any of that?

Seems to me if the Saudis are suppose to be our partners, gave Obama (and Bush) money why not just give them the nukes, they are our "allies" right. why jump though hopes trying to "give" Iran Nukes, it makes no sense. Let the Saudis Bomb Syria then Iran then Israel right? and let the calphite begin right? there's a plan for you. If we are just making up secret plans that is.

In another thread Jafar forced me to do some reading.
As you know I'm NOT a fan of the Sauds but after what Jafar pointed out about the Wahabi sect of Islam, which is headed, funded and Exported by the Sauds. I've got a NEW level of harsh distaste for them.
We REALLY should have gotten of M.E. oil in the 70's.

the Saudis brand of Islam you say is not about a caliphate, well maybe, but it's like the KluKluxKlan version of Islam.
we -the U.S.- are backing one of THE VERY worse brands of Islam there is out there.
As mentioned before, there are ZERO churches in Saudi Arabia and they want to Export that view to other countries and the world.
Caliphate by any other name is still Islamic tyranny.
the ONLY reason those people are rich is because of the Oil that we in the west purchase.
We have no real common political goals with the Saudis outside of that. How many Sauds have to be terrorist before we get the idea that they don't like us. How many U.S. gov't reports have to be covered up to make them seem like they are some how working with us and haven't attacked us directly on more than one occasion.

If there were a gov't report that covered up the fact that Iranian officials had ANY part in 9/11 most of you here would be screaming for Iranian blood. But we DO have an official report about the Saudis but somehow that's not that bad, no need for sanctions or anything, not even INVESTIGATIONS. the IRANIANS are the ENEMY that have to CRUSH before its TO LATE AAAAHHHH! they might get a BOMB!!!

we need to pull our dollars out of the M.E.. and let the area wither, and send in missionaries and pray for them.

the Saudis have never been our friend and they've never been moderate Islamist. T

[jafar00]

I see, you mean friendly as in appeasement. Yes, we've seen how well that works with muslims as its a sign of great weakness and inspires them to ever greater opposition. That is what more and more Americans are now waking up to . So by your advice in their zeal to destroy Israel first and the USA second we should try to sweet talk them out of it!!! Utterly naïve and ridiculous IMHO. -Tyr

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to realise that friendly, international cooperation in their nuclear program to guarantee that it is done transparently and peacefully is better than the antagonistic approach which only hurts the innocent Iranian with all the sanctions and distrust.


Such an approach defers altogether too much to the Iranian regime, giving them too much say in the pace and extent of progress made. Considering their 'wipe Israel off the map' Holocaustal threat from years ago .. and the 'inexplicable' insistence Iran has in saying it wants a method of power generation it cannot possibly need, yet from a technology that 'so happens' to lend itself to the completion of such a threat .. it's surely madness to think of deferring further to an aggressor power.

Besides, all this wastes yet more time - as if enough hasn't already been wasted !! No, I think the exact opposite approach is called for - show strength, not an appearance of weakness.

Ahmedinejad didn't say he would wipe Israel off the map all those years ago. I thought that debate was done years ago anyway?


An immediate military approach ends the threat before it can be moved underground or used. The saud's would applaud this action. They don't like their position as elite muslims threatened by a bunch of shia.

I suspect any release of prisoners or other conditions met by Israel concerning the pals is not to appease kerry, but to appease the sauds. A certain amount or time in the air over saudi or even a refueling point. It's a win win for both the sauds and the Israelis since iran is a threat to both of them.

They have already moved a lot of the program under mountain bunkers and some of it secretly done until the IAEA detects it.


Tyr all due respect, do you have any proof for any of that?

Seems to me if the Saudis are suppose to be our partners, gave Obama (and Bush) money why not just give them the nukes, they are our "allies" right. why jump though hopes trying to "give" Iran Nukes, it makes no sense. Let the Saudis Bomb Syria then Iran then Israel right? and let the calphite begin right? there's a plan for you. If we are just making up secret plans that is.

In another thread Jafar forced me to do some reading.
As you know I'm NOT a fan of the Sauds but after what Jafar pointed out about the Wahabi sect of Islam, which is headed, funded and Exported by the Sauds. I've got a NEW level of harsh distaste for them.
We REALLY should have gotten of M.E. oil in the 70's.

the Saudis brand of Islam you say is not about a caliphate, well maybe, but it's like the KluKluxKlan version of Islam.
we -the U.S.- are backing one of THE VERY worse brands of Islam there is out there.
As mentioned before, there are ZERO churches in Saudi Arabia and they want to Export that view to other countries and the world.
Caliphate by any other name is still Islamic tyranny.
the ONLY reason those people are rich is because of the Oil that we in the west purchase.
We have no real common political goals with the Saudis outside of that. How many Sauds have to be terrorist before we get the idea that they don't like us. How many U.S. gov't reports have to be covered up to make them seem like they are some how working with us and haven't attacked us directly on more than one occasion.

If there were a gov't report that covered up the fact that Iranian officials had ANY part in 9/11 most of you here would be screaming for Iranian blood. But we DO have an official report about the Saudis but somehow that's not that bad, no need for sanctions or anything, not even INVESTIGATIONS. the IRANIANS are the ENEMY that have to CRUSH before its TO LATE AAAAHHHH! they might get a BOMB!!!

we need to pull our dollars out of the M.E.. and let the area wither, and send in missionaries and pray for them.

the Saudis have never been our friend and they've never been moderate Islamist. T

How true. What do the Sauds, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Nusra etc... have in common?
They are all Wahhabi!

[Drummond]

Ahmedinejad didn't say he would wipe Israel off the map all those years ago.

Yes, Jafar, that was exactly the intention Ahmadinejad had in mind.


They have already moved a lot of the program under mountain bunkers and some of it secretly done until the IAEA detects it.

.... in which case, 'playing nice' is absolutely NOT the way to proceed !!! What your own statement says is that no trust can be applied, that given an inch, they'll take a mile. The kind of mentality that is exploitative.

Why allow extra latitude for further exploitation ?

[Jeff]

I say let's bring our boys home. Let the world of Islam blow themselves up.


I have to agree with this but I thought Obama was going to do that 5 years ago ?

And of course there is that little fact that with our troops there we are keeping a handle on terrorism , if and when we leave it will be worst than ever.

[Drummond]

I have to agree with this but I thought Obama was going to do that 5 years ago ?

And of course there is that little fact that with our troops there we are keeping a handle on terrorism , if and when we leave it will be worst than ever.

Couldn't agree more with that last part.

The only suggestion I've got (I've no idea how practical it would be to implement it) is to, in any and all areas where troop deployments are due to return home, there be a temporary flooding of those areas with many MORE troops. Purely temporary, before the withdrawals happen ... but with the twin aims of (1) mopping up known terrorist hotspots more effectively, to create a lasting effect, and (2) do this so that the enemy's propaganda has a hard time explaining the withdrawals as proof of US lack of resolve, or ineffectiveness, or even so-called 'spinelessness'.

That's the trouble with withdrawing from a scenario where your enemy remains undefeated. Propaganda exploitation of it is bound to follow. And with it, increased morale leading to increased recruitment.

[jimnyc]

I've been off and on this site for almost a year now, and I have yet to see one scrap of intellignece from one post of yours.

Others can speak for themselves, but again...

TEN TO ONE ODDS FOR YOU IN A DEBATE, and I will let someone else hold the money and we equally choose voters. Only an asshole pops in from time to time solely to insult others. It would be decent if you had some intelligence yourself, and didn't write like a grammar school student, and look like a mini gay version of the Unabomber...

Put your money where your mouth is, don't just insult - make money from them insults!!

I will even state right now that I'll choose one of my voters as "liberalnation", this way we know the voting will be fair, or so I hope she would be. This would be the easiest 50 bucks I have ever made in my life, from a liberal who makes other liberals look dumb! :lol:

[jimnyc]

I have to agree with this but I thought Obama was going to do that 5 years ago ?

And of course there is that little fact that with our troops there we are keeping a handle on terrorism , if and when we leave it will be worst than ever.

I'd like to see bing's take on why Obama lied, and why the troops he wants home are being forced to stay in places that even bingy disagrees with. McChimpy can't even appease his own side of liberals who agree with anything with a (D) next to their name. Watch, he'll make some sort of excuse now, like it was Bush's fault - sure, his fault that Obama LIED on the campaign trail and has refused to do anything since he came into office - except for bypassing congress and entering Libya. He's done the same as GWB, by supporting what he started, and adding some on top of that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to realise that friendly, international cooperation in their nuclear program to guarantee that it is done transparently and peacefully is better than the antagonistic approach which only hurts the innocent Iranian with all the sanctions and distrust. Neville Chamberlain though exactly the same way. History proves his stupidity for all to see! His trusting Hitler was no different than id we chose to trust Iran. To trust anybody that lies like a damn rug, lies religiously is folly upon stupidity, wrapped in idiocy. --Tyr

[Drummond]

Neville Chamberlain though exactly the same way. History proves his stupidity for all to see! His trusting Hitler was no different than id we chose to trust Iran. To trust anybody that lies like a damn rug, lies religiously is folly upon stupidity, wrapped in idiocy. --Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

Can't better that post ! Exactly right.

[pete311]

boo hoo to the saudis, who cares, they are not our friends. they only tolerate us because we buy their oil and hold back iran. Their culture is as backwards as it gets

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

boo hoo to the saudis, who cares, they are not our friends. they only tolerate us because we buy their oil and hold back iran. Their culture is as backwards as it gets Yet its not the Saudis that are nuking up, Iran is . Now how did that amazing scientific brain of yours overlook that fact? Seems you use or ignore facts as fit your own bias quite well. Just an early observation which I will endeavor to stay on top of since you made it quite clear how great and superior your scientific opinion is over we that should live in a cave. -Tyr