posted on November 10, 2003 08:54:17 AM new
For those that swear that the Saudi government is in cahouts with Bin Laden I am curious as to how you work this weekends bombing of a Riyadh housing complex (200 units, only 4 non Saudi rented units, none rented by Americans) and the comments below fit into that theory?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U.S. Says Al Qaeda Aims to Topple Saudi Royals
RIYADH (Reuters) - A U.S. official said on Monday the al Qaeda network was trying to topple the pro-Western Saudi government and royal family, but Riyadh vowed militants would not destabilize the world biggest oil exporter.
"It is quite clear to me that al Qaeda wants to take down the royal family and the government of Saudi Arabia," U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Al Arabiya television, excerpts of which were broadcast on Monday.
Osama bin Laden)'s al Qaeda group is suspected of staging a suicide attack on Sunday that killed at least 17 people and wounded 120 in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. In May, a triple suicide bombing on a Riyadh housing complex killed 35 people.
Armitage said Sunday's attack was shocking but noted Saudi security forces had gone on the offensive since May.
"So from our point of view, the authorities are working 24/7 to try to better the situation," he said, noting the difficulty was that the defenders must "be right 100 percent of the time and the terrorists only have to be right once."
Washington has been pressing Saudi Arabia to combat al Qaeda, believed responsible for the attacks on U.S. cities on September 11, 2001. Fifteen out of the 19 attackers were Saudis.
Saudi officials said they would hunt down those behind the Sunday attack and, along with Washington, blamed al Qaeda.
"(The attack is) a sign of desperation and not the sign...of someone who is going to succeed in upsetting the social balance or the political structure of the country," Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Britain, Prince Turki al-Faisal, told Reuters.
The bombers on Sunday posed as police and blew up an explosives-rigged car in the Muhaya compound in Riyadh.
Security has been stepped up for diplomats and on Western residences in Riyadh. Many compounds for expatriates, who hold key jobs in the kingdom's oil industry and military programs, already resemble army camps from the outside.
Ringed by up to 50 soldiers from Saudi Arabia's national guard, the compounds' high perimeter walls are topped by razor wire, surrounded with concrete blocks and monitored by close circuit television. Some have machine guns at the gate and armored vehicles covered by netting near the entrance.
Armitage, who arrived in Riyadh on Sunday, told reporters: "I can't say that last night's attack was the only or the last attack. My view is these al Qaeda terrorists -- and I believe it was al Qaeda -- would prefer to have many such events."
A Saudi security source in Riyadh also said the attack was an "al Qaeda operation."
The blast came only days after Western nations issued fresh terror alerts and Washington shut its missions in the kingdom.
Western embassies in Saudi Arabia urged their nationals to remain vigilant after the attacks.
In its latest advisory, the U.S. embassy said on Monday it and the consulates in the kingdom will remain closed to the public till further notice, pending further security assessment.
It however relaxed its restrictions on movement, saying its personnel and their dependants in Riyadh "are no longer confined to the diplomatic quarter and may move about Riyadh."
Interior Minister Prince Nayef said the kingdom would not be shaken by the attack and pledged to "get the perpetrators, no matter how long it takes."
Saudi forces have killed five Islamist militants in clashes since Monday, when authorities said they had foiled a planned attack on Muslim pilgrims in the holy city of Mecca.
The kingdom's chief of security, Lieutenant General Saeed bin Abdullah al-Qahtani, said 4,700 soldiers would be deployed in Mecca to protect pilgrims this year. He said the deployment plan was drawn last year.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 11, 2003 09:23:16 AM new
fenix - I'm not one who has stated binLaden is in cohoots with Saudi Arabia, but I do believe SA's leading clerics has been, and is presently, teaching their school children hatred for all those who do not follow their religious beliefs. Just read something again about this.
IF binLaden is even more religious [read extreme] than these clerics, then I can understand why the A-Q was involved in this latest bombing. According the the extremely religious, the area that was bomb was referred to as 'a den of innickquity' by them. And maybe ??? they felt they could make a statement about their lifestyles. Rather than this being proof that Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with the terrorists.
posted on November 11, 2003 10:26:59 AM new
Linda - Bin Laden declared his hatred for the Saudi Royal Family years before the 9/11 attack. He resents the friendly relationship that SA has shared with the US and wants to eliminate all western influences from from the Kingdom.
I find it very curious that all of those that posted with such ressolve and venom against the Kingdom have been so utterly silent in the light of these new announcements.
Are there radical clerics that teach extreme views? Absolutely. Is this a reason to indict a nation? No. Unless of course you wish our nation and governemnts views to be linked to the ramblings of the likes of Pat Roberts, a nationally broadcast religious leader who stated that god allowed 9/11 to teach us all a lesson about our moral decline, had his followers pray for the death of Supreme Court justices, endorsed nuking a government facility and has taught a general lesson of fear and loathing of anyone who lives by a different set of beliefs than himself.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 11, 2003 10:52:31 AM new
sorry fenix - had my response all typed out and lost power.
::Linda - Bin Laden declared his hatred for the Saudi Royal Family years before the 9/11 attack. He resents the friendly relationship that SA has shared with the US and wants to eliminate all western influences from from the Kingdom::
Agreed. But his organization was receiving funding by the Saudi's, if only for buying their own protection. I see that as supporting terrorism. The Saudi's were only worried about terrorism on their own land....not others, imo.
::I find it very curious that all of those that posted with such ressolve and venom against the Kingdom have been so utterly silent in the light of these new announcements::
I think we in the US have good reasons to question which side of their mouths they are speaking out of at any given time. The have supported us by going after some terrorists. They have also refused to turn over, or let us interview those same terrorists. They did not support our effort in Iraq, by allowing the use of their air fields.
::Are there radical clerics that teach extreme views? Absolutely. Is this a reason to indict a nation? No:: These 'radical clerics' as you call them are the one's indoctronating their young ones, fenix. I have read many reports that the leaders in SA have totally relinquished the power to religious clerics to teach their children this hatred of all who don't believe as they do. This is not just some/a few isolated radical clerics. These are the clerics who are teaching their young, there in SA, and here in their schools in our country.
posted on November 11, 2003 10:54:10 AM new
I also meant to add that almost all of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi's.
That would lead anyone to question IF SA was more involved than we have been led to believe.
posted on November 11, 2003 11:10:51 AM new
Didn't we also recently hear from one of Bin Ladens cohorts that it was a very conscious decision on Bin Ladens part to use primarily Saudi nationals in order to create suspicion and annimosity of Saudis among Americans? This is not a stupid man. He is playing the American public like a fiddle. Another person that Bin Laden has frequently spoken out against was Saddam due to his acts against fellow Muslims. Prior to our invsion of Iraq when Bush was trying to sell America on a connenction between Saddam and 9/11 out comes a new tapes form BIn Laden where he called Saddam "friend" and declared solidarity with him which helped to enforce the governments claims and increase public support for the invasion.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 11, 2003 11:17:17 AM new
::I think we in the US have good reasons to question which side of their mouths they are speaking out of at any given time. ::
The anouncement was made by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Are you unsure of him?
::They did not support our effort in Iraq, by allowing the use of their air fields. ::
That is incorrect. We made the decision to not use our Saudi airfields because it would put the Kingdom at risk of increased AQ attacks. Did they ask not to for that reason? Probably. But the end decision was made by the US.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 11, 2003 11:55:14 AM new
fenix -
::He is playing the American public like a fiddle:: Agreed, he is not a stupid man, but few have anyway of knowing whether he is 'playing' us or whether some of these issues are in fact truth. That's why you usually see me posting my support of my countries administration. I feel they know better than we do. We do not have the information/intelligence they do. And it still isn't going to change the minds of those who don't trust any nation who teaches hatred of other countries because they don't agree with their religion. [ie: the US] And also because of their past actions. I agree some look at them as our allies. I'm still suspicious and sometimes lean one way and sometimes another.
But on the whole, I'm very untrusting of their intentions.
::Another person that Bin Laden has frequently spoken out against was Saddam due to his acts against fellow Muslims:: Yes, and because of a few reports I've read, I am also suspicious of their support of one another. NOT because of sharing the same religious beliefs, I know they don't, but rather because of their mutual hatred for the West and Westerners. That's a very strong mutually shared value, imo.
::I think we in the US have good reasons to question which side of their mouths they are speaking out of::
::The anouncement was made by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Are you unsure of him?::
For me personally, it takes reading a ton of different opinions from a lot of sources to make up my mind on any subject. As I said, I'm still not trusting of SA.
::They did not support our effort in Iraq, by allowing the use of their air fields. ::
::That is incorrect. We made the decision to not use our Saudi airfields because it would put the Kingdom at risk of increased AQ attacks. Did they ask not to for that reason? Probably. But the end decision was made by the US::
You and I just see this issue differently. We were told they didn't want us using their air fields, and given their reasons why. That's why we started building new ones in Qutar. Your statement sounds like we just shouldn't have taken their 'no' as an answer, and done it anyway. We wouldn't have, just as we didn't when Turkey wouldn't allow our troops to deploy on their soil. There was no choice, we were told no.
posted on November 11, 2003 12:29:08 PM new
I heard that the Saudi's were working both sides of the fence. They were supporting terrorists on one hand and supporting the U.S. on the other. This was a clear message for Saudi to cut ties with the U.S. or else.
posted on November 11, 2003 12:37:31 PM new
::Your statement sounds like we just shouldn't have taken their 'no' as an answer, and done it anyway. ::
Absolutely not, just the opposite. I think that using the bases in Saudi Arabia would have made a bad situation worse and the decision not to use those fields was in the best interest of both us and the Saudis.
::There was no choice, we were told no. ::
Can you ifnd me some proof or officil mention of that? I have this distinct recolection of Rumsfield being asks about this issue during a press conference and his stating the decision was one made by the US, not by the Saudis. I admit there were a lot of very late nights during this that time so maybe I was imagining it but I don't ever remember hearing that the Saudis said that we could not use the airfields.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 11, 2003 01:47:14 PM new
Saudi FM: Prince Sultan base will not be used for attacking Iraq
Saudi Arabia-Iraq, Politics, 12/25/2002
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister prince Saud al-Faisal has called on the Arab states to work to avoid Iraq any military act, stressing that prince Sultan base in Riyadh will not be used for attacking Iraq.
In a press conference he held yesterday in Riyadh, the Saudi foreign minister said "we want to avoid Iraq any military act and our aim is to settle matters peacefully and in the framework of the UN." He indicated that the Arab states can contribute to avoiding Iraq any military act. He expressed content over Iraq's response with the UN inspectors.
He said that his country will not take part in the military act against Iraq, stressing the need to keep Iraq united and independent. He explained that Iraq is an important and pivotal country in the world and its stability and prosperity is important for all the countries of the region. He said "We fear the results of any military action against Iraq."
[i]The Saudi foreign minister stressed that Prince Sultan base in Riyadh will not be used for attacking Iraq[/b], noting that the said base exists to monitor the air embargo ( no fly Zone) imposed on southern Iraq, according to UN security council resolution.
Taken from ArabicNews.com
----------
And yes, helen - one who is always supportive of those countries who were unwilling to help the US.......after SA decided we weren't going to be allowed to use their bases to attack Iraq....see their reasons above......we made an agreement with Qatar to have bases there. Then the Saudi's MIGHT have changed their minds...but too late...our equipment was already being pulled out and on it's way to Qatar.
posted on November 11, 2003 01:55:54 PM new
The fact that SA could NOT be depended upon to allow our troops access to Iraq, meant we HAD to turn to another alternatve. We had a PLAN, helen. And an alternate PLAN helen.
posted on November 11, 2003 02:48:00 PM new
No, helen, not on the fly. I can post many urls where the Saudi's said no use of their airbase. From approx. 4-02 through 1-03.
To me that proves our government was working out deals with both Turkey and Saudi Arabia during that time frame. And when did we first attack Iraq? Almost a year later. They were working out a plan long before.
Since you're the one who disputes that, why don't you show us a url where they changed their minds, as you claim.
posted on November 11, 2003 03:07:31 PM new
LOL - What a laugh you are. Can't back up your statement....so my 'proof' stands. They were not going to allow us to use their bases.
And in addition, they were also calling for the removal of our troops around the Jan. 2003 time frame.
Anyway...your memory doesn't equal what news reports quote from the Saudi leader.
posted on November 11, 2003 03:09:32 PM new
Linda - I don't mean to be picky but that states that the the base was not being used, not that the Saudi's were not allowing it. In fact, the only mention of why it was not being used referred to a UN resolution, not a Saudi government decision.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 11, 2003 03:19:21 PM new
fenix - Yes, unless the UN gave it's backing....which everyone knew they wouldn't.
What does this Saudi leaders statement mean to you?
He indicated that the Arab states can contribute to avoiding Iraq any military act?
Can you not be a little bit open to the possibility that this 'call to all Arab nations' may have also contributdd to why, after Turkey had promised the US approx. 70,000 troops, they too changed their minds on doing so. And then they wouldn't even allow us to cross their land with our troops and equipment? I believe it was a call to all Arab leaders to side against the US. And Saudi Arabia did that, and called for others to do so too. That is NOT the action of a friend or ally, imo.
Be picky all you wish to be. You believe the Saudi's are our friends, and I don't. Maybe you can provide a link where the Saudi leader said we COULD use their bases. I think it's quite clear they weren't allowing us to do so....no matter their reason of the moment.
The British daily The Times said yesterday that Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow Washington to use its air base if the US starts a war against Iraq.
The paper added that this consent by Riyadh will facilitate the mission of the American military planners who were searching for alternatives in case Saudi Arabia refused to play a role in the likely war against Iraq.
New York Times: Saudi Arabia will permit US to use its airspace to attack Iraq
Saudi Arabia-Iraq, Politics, 12/30/2002
The New York Times daily has quoted American military officials as saying that Saudi Arabia will permit the US to use its airspace and bases in the event of an American war against Iraq.
Chief of Staff of the US air forces John Jumber said in an interview with the New York Times published on its Web site saying : I firmly think that the Saudis will give us all cooperation we want and we get much more than we ask for.
The paper quoted American leaders as saying that they got confirmations in special statements that they can use an advanced leadership center at Prince Sultan Airbase, where they can run a war campaign against Iraq.
The American military sources explained that supply operations will be launched together with reconnaissance, monitoring and transport operations from bases in Saudi Arabia and using the Saudi airspace during missions in Iraq or around. The paper indicated that the Saudis have permitted in secret since two months American planes stationed in Saudi Arabia to strike goals in southern Iraq, while such missions used to be launched earlier from Kuwait.
posted on November 11, 2003 03:35:30 PM new
Here's one from the UK....
B
ush and Saudis trade air bases for withdrawal
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 27/02/2003)
The White House and the House of Saud have struck a deal to allow allied air operations against Iraq to be launched from Saudi, in return for the phased withdrawal of all American troops once hostilities are over.
Under the agreement, finalised after intensive negotiations this month, the command centre at Prince Sultan Air Base will be made available and American Awacs surveillance aircraft and Jstars radar aircraft will fly from Saudi airfields. It is also likely that jet fighters will launch interception missions from Saudi Arabia against Iraqi aircraft, while some secret bombing missions might take place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/27/wirq327.xml
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on November 11, 2003 06:39:28 PM new
I made a point, in a previous point, that the Saudi's speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Here's an article from 1-8-03 saying they won't again:
The psychological war between the USA and Saudi Arabia has changed Er Riyadh-s foreign policy. The Saudi government prohibited the USA to use American military bases on the Saudi Arabia territory in case if a war was waged against Iraq. So that makes my other point that we could not depend on them for using their bases.....and went to PLAN B.
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/08/41754.html
We're each going to believe what we believe.
I say most Arab countries didn't want Saddam removed. They wanted/want Israel removed and support terrorism to accomplish this result. The Saudi's support the Palistenians....the US leans towards helping Israel remain right where the are. I support that.
The Saudi's have funded the A-Q network. They had many times told the world the US could not use their bases....and they wanted the US military out.
An anti-neocon site that is long but gives a good look at the Saudi's relationship [historical] with the US is very informative about what's really going on in that country. http://www.eurolegal.org/mideast/mesauar.htm
posted on November 11, 2003 06:52:23 PM new
fenix - Upon reading your article, which obviously is more current than my last one [1-8-03] your's also says:
Details of the deal are unlikely to be announced before the eve of an invasion. Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, denied yesterday that any arrangements had been finalised.
A European diplomatic source, however, said that the principles behind the deal had been established several months ago. He said: "The Saudis didn't want to look too willing in a rush to war. They have a domestic problem - after all, this is where Osama bin Laden gets the funding for his campaign from.
posted on November 12, 2003 11:40:43 AM new
ooooh....someone has her nose out of joint today.
The first url you post as proof identify's one military person who says he THINKS they'll allow us to use the bases.
The other two url's you post quote absolutely no one at all....just quoting a previous story posted elsewhere.
EDITED TO ADD: Two of your links even say: "A spokeswoman for the US defense department ( the Pentagon ) refused to comment on this report and the officials at the Saudi embassy in Washington did not also comment."
So I don't know about you, and what your standards of proof are, but No comment from the Saudis or our government, isn't proof by my definition.
fenix's criteria was: "some proof or official mention". Your three urls didn't provide that. Mine did....I quoted the Foreign Minister of SA. So I win!!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 12, 2003 11:43 AM ]
posted on November 12, 2003 11:49:47 AM new
A little recent humor from ......
Jay Leno.... "And Saudi Arabia now blaming al-Qa'ida for the suicide car bombing that took place over there this weekend. Saudi officials said the government is so angry with al-Qa'ida, they may stop sending them money." very funny.....and very true.
But I love him no matter who he's poking fun at.
Uh oh...I see you are trying to camouflage your nasty feelings with a sprinkling of happy faces.
I have an entire page of articles that will corroborate my statement but proof is wasted on you. I could smack you upside the head with facts and you wouldn't even flinch from your uninformed position.
Mine did....I quoted the Foreign Minister of SA. So I win!!!!