Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

No Arab Spring In Saudi Arabia?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Cork boy 55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    Canvasser wrote: »
    Considering the protesters they were going to beat and arrest were unarmed then the armoured cars sufficied. The "rebels" in Syria on the other hand are armed to the teeth with weapons supplied by foreign powers. 2000 Syrian police alone have been killed by the "pro-democracy" rebels. No one is asking who these rebels are. The fact is they are anything but democracts and are often islamic nut jobs.


    Wrong again The vehicles in the second photo are not armoured cars

    They are

    British made (BAE systems INC)
    Alvis Tactica
    4X4 Armoured personnel carrier (wheeled) internal security variant

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Tactica

    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2838.html
    I have seen other variants of it deployed in the six counties.


  • Options
    #33
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    If I'm honest, Cork Boy, that's just nitpicking. Plus the vehicles in the pictures were MRAPs and jeeps, not APCs. APCs are technically tanks too, but the term "armour" would be more accurate.

    One thing is for certain- nobody cares :)


  • Options
    #34
    Cork boy 55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    If I'm honest, Cork Boy, that's just nitpicking. Plus the vehicles in the pictures were MRAPs and jeeps, not APCs.

    They are not MRAP They are an APC from the Tactica range
    Saudi Arabia brought 261 one of them from the UK in 2006 for 900,000,000 dollars see my last post for links.
    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    APCs are technically tanks too, but the term "armour" would be more accurate.

    APCs are not tanks.
    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    One thing is for certain- nobody cares :)

    I care.


  • Options
    #35
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I think its safe to say that the vehicles sent over were not baby carriers nor were they intended to pick up children and bring old people to hospital.


  • Options
    #36
    plasmaguy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Big difference between the "tanks" saudi arabia sent into Bahrain and the T-72 and T-55 Main Battle tanks Assad sent into cities like Homs and Aleppo against peaceful protesters, not to mention mortar bombing and shelling of peaceful funeral processions.

    For the most part the Bahrain police used teargas to break up protests. Assad however went way way over the top and in the first four months of the uprising the vast majority of people murdered by Assad, several thousand in fact, were peaceful unarmed protesters.

    That is not to mention the tens of thousands of disappeared in Syria, no-one even knows their fate but one has to suspect the worst.

    The 20,000 deathtoll most often cited in Syria is verified deaths only. Its very hard to count those who have died in government custody, tortured to death, disappeared and so on since obviously the government are going to cover up numbers of dead killed in government custody.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    plasmaguy stop trying to bloody derail the thread!

    Also, by plasmaguy:
    They sent in tanks....
    Big difference between the "tanks"....

    So they were sending in tanks, but then you say they sent in "tanks". Make up your mind child.


  • Options
    #38
    RATM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭RATM


    Also the royal family run the House of Saud which claims direct lineage back to Muhammed. For many Saudis challenging their authority is like challenging god so it won't be happening full stop.
    Also the structure of Saudi society is a factor- there are over 15,000 members of the Royal Family alone before you get into all the liggers and hangers-on that each member has. They pervade deep into society and even the normal Saudi on the street is probably only one step away from royalty.

    Any proper uprising is more likely to come from the Shia population but their numbers are tiny. They would be crushed in an instant with the blessing and assistance of the CIA.


  • Options
    #39
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Canvasser wrote: »
    You should get out more
    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    plasmaguy stop trying to bloody derail the thread!

    Also, by plasmaguy:





    So they were sending in tanks, but then you say they sent in "tanks". Make up your mind child.

    Less of the one liner posts adding nothing. If anybody thinks somebody is trying to derail a thread, report the poster, don't argue it on thread.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #40
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    K-9 wrote: »
    Less of the one liner posts adding nothing. If anybody thinks somebody is trying to derail a thread, report the poster, don't argue it on thread.

    You don't really believe plasmaguy's reply was on topic do you? I don't understand why you need to wait for someone to report plasmaguy but you take action yourself against Eggy Baby! The fact you have only taken Eggy Baby! to task even though it clearly takes two to argue shows that you are biased. You say we should use the report function but what is the point in doing that when it's already obvious you don't have a problem with plasmaguy's posts?


  • Options
    #41
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    cyberhog wrote: »
    You don't really believe plasmaguy's reply was on topic do you? I don't understand why you need to wait for someone to report plasmaguy but you take action yourself against Eggy Baby! The fact you have only taken Eggy Baby! to task even though it clearly takes two to argue shows that you are biased. You say we should use the report function but what is the point in doing that when it's already obvious you don't have a problem with plasmaguy's posts?

    PM me if you want to discuss moderation, you know the score at this stage. Just to be clear, I didn't issue any cards, just the warning.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cyberhog
    Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    K-9 wrote: »
    PM me if you want to discuss moderation, you know the score at this stage. Just to be clear, I didn't issue any cards, just the warning.

    Yes I do know the score. The reason you won't discuss this matter in public is because you are unable to refute the charge of bias.


  • Options
    #43
    plasmaguy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    plasmaguy stop trying to bloody derail the thread!

    Also, by plasmaguy:





    So they were sending in tanks, but then you say they sent in "tanks". Make up your mind child.

    I was quoting you I believe when you said the Saudi Arabians sent in tanks, when in fact they werent tanks as pointed out by another poster. They were no more than armoured vehicles of the type used by the PSNI in NI to protect against riots. They certainly weren't tanks.

    As opposed to the T-72s and T-55s sent in by Assad to deal with protesters.

    I'd rather be attacked by the Saudi Arabian vehicles than a T72. A T72 can demolish an entire apartment block with one shell. The vehicles SA sent into Bahrain have little or no firepower.

    So lets get real here.


  • Options
    #44
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    plasmaguy wrote: »
    I was quoting you I believe when you said the Saudi Arabians sent in tanks, when in fact they werent tanks as pointed out by another poster. They were no more than armoured vehicles of the type used by the PSNI in NI to protect against riots. They certainly weren't tanks.

    As opposed to the T-72s and T-55s sent in by Assad to deal with protesters.

    I'd rather be attacked by the Saudi Arabian vehicles than a T72. A T72 can demolish an entire apartment block with one shell. The vehicles SA sent into Bahrain have little or no firepower.

    So lets get real here.

    Okay, can we drop the discussion and comparisons to Syria? You and other posters made those comparisons, you've made your point, but it is time to move on now and discuss the OP's point.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #45
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I was quoting you I believe when you said the Saudi Arabians sent in tanks, when in fact they werent tanks as pointed out by another poster. They were no more than armoured vehicles of the type used by the PSNI in NI to protect against riots. They certainly weren't tanks.

    I was using it figuratively, like I said earlier. My post would have had much less kick if I said; "They sent in the MRAPs erm..the AFVs...no, wait...the APCs..."

    Even then, two pictures does not prove the absence of tanks in Operation Peninsula Shield. I could take two pictures of the Nazis hugging kittens in Eastern Europe; would that whitewash the fact they massacred millions?

    The fact remains- a significant force was used by the Saudis to crush revolts in Bahrain. It doesn't matter whether they used tanks, APCs, AFVs, AAVPs, MRAPs or whatever. I don't know why you are so obsessed with tanks being used because its absolutely circumstantial whether or not they were.
    I'd rather be attacked by the Saudi Arabian vehicles than a T72. A T72 can demolish an entire apartment block with one shell. The vehicles SA sent into Bahrain have little or no firepower.

    Being dragged a little bit off topic here but hey.

    Have you seen the damage a 50 calibre machine gun can do? Many of those vehicles in the pictures seem to have HMGs.

    In Syria, the army mainly uses BMPs and Shilkas (AAA) on protestors/whoever. A T72 shell cannot level an entire apartment block- that is a myth. The ammo used by tanks varies, but usually its either AP or AT. AT has better penetration, and would just punch a hole in the building. AP is usually explosive or frag-based, and would just explode on the face of (or inside) the building.

    "I would rather be attacked by..." unfortunately its not very fun to be hit in the chest by a machine gun, whether its from a tank or from a jeep. This is an abhorrent justification of the violence in Bahrain perpetrated by the Saudis.

    P.S Tanks wouldn't use shells on protestors anyway unless they are fortified- they use the coaxial MG. Another Hollywood myth debunked.

    P.S.S It would also be awesome if you would stop pointlessly diverting the discussion from the Saudis onto Syria. If you want to talk about Syrian tanks, then use the thread for Syria.


  • Options
    #46
    troposphere
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 174 ✭✭troposphere


    Be hard to sneak some tanks into Bahrain since there is only one road unless you think they decided to airlift them the 25km.


  • Options
    #47
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    troposphere wrote: »
    Be hard to sneak some tanks into Bahrain since there is only one road unless you think they decided to airlift them the 25km.

    Since when have tanks needed roads?


  • Options
    #48
    troposphere
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 174 ✭✭troposphere


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Since when have tanks needed roads?

    Take a guess

    Bahrain_map.gif


  • Options
    #49
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    troposphere wrote: »
    Take a guess

    Bahrain_map.gif

    LOL my bad!

    Could have brought them in by ship or by air easily enough.


Advertisement