This is topic Saudi based Al-Qaeda terrorists bombed US consulate in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/5337.html

Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Allright, it has becoming increasingly apparent that Saudi Arabia will not control its terrorists or keep them from attacking the US. Most recently, an Al-Qaeda group local to S.A. has bombed the US embassy, killing five and injuring four in an apparent attempt to kill Americans.

This is so beyond violating economic sanctions. They're targeting Americans and S.A. is ineffective to stop them. Isn't it time we moved in?
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
More Saudi Arabian national terrorists killing off American soldiers and civilians.

Yet we still coddle the Saudis and give them whatever they want. That's the Bush Administration's foreign policy priorities for you.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
an Al-Qaeda group local to S.A.
You want to try to source that most unlikely claim, Zyne?
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
Oops, I forgot the link--http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/06/jeddah.attack/index.html :

quote:
A Saudi group linked to al Qaeda ...

 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
Gee, aren't we glad we sat by and let the Suadis grant amnesty to Al Qaeda members? I'm sure the appologists will say there is no proof that the pardoned Al Qaeda took part in this, but you must admit that on a basic level it signifies that Saudi Arabia is making itself a safe haven for terrorists.
 
Posted by msquared (Member # 113) on :
 
David said :More Saudi Arabian national terrorists killing off American soldiers and civilians.


Not to downplay what happened, but IIRC, no Americans were killed in this attack. Not that the group was not trying.

msquared
 
Posted by ATW (Member # 1690) on :
 
Saudi Arabia had one incident around May 2003 and one in December 2004.

I'm not seeing any "increasingly apparent" to start with.

As for S.A. being ineffective, with other allies who've been ineffective we've sent massive amounts of aid and professionals such as S.W.A.T. teams to train the local forces. Perhaps we should try being consistent as opposed to changing policy every time something happens.

[ December 07, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: ATW ]
 
Posted by Paul C (Member # 1804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zyne:
Allright, it has becoming increasingly apparent that Saudi Arabia will not control its terrorists or keep them from attacking the US. Most recently, an Al-Qaeda group local to S.A. has bombed the US embassy, killing five and injuring four in an apparent attempt to kill Americans.

This is so beyond violating economic sanctions. They're targeting Americans and S.A. is ineffective to stop them. Isn't it time we moved in?

You forgot to blame it on Bush!

Paul C
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
I'm giving him one more chance to begin protecting our country from terrorists. [Smile]
 
Posted by Paul C (Member # 1804) on :
 
Very kind of you!
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Actually, SA is working with us to limit terrorists. Four Saudi security men died defending the US consulate. For those who have called in the past for Muslim leaders to denounce such acts, one need look no farther than SA civil, academic, and religious leaders.

Now, I've been keeping my eye on Saudi Arabia very closely - both in their press and in ours. I never let myself forget that it was largely Saudis who masterminded and implemented the 9/11 attacks. Currently, it appears that they took "with us or against us" very seriously.

Have some Saudis funded terrorists? Yeah, you betcha. But I've seen money collected for the IRA in Boston, and I don't feel that represents the majority view here in the US either.

I suggest you check out this article, and others coming out of Jeddah, as part of your decision-making process.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=55687&d=7&m=12&y=2004&pix=opinion.jpg&category=Opinion
 
Posted by Adam Lassek (Member # 1514) on :
 
quote:
They're targeting Americans and S.A. is ineffective to stop them. Isn't it time we moved in?
Saudi Arabia is just about one of the worst places we could possibly invade, right next to China and North Korea. I can easily imagine an invasion sparking an all-out jihad against America.

Besides, I think we can all agree that invasion is a last resort, and the Saudi government is cooperating with us. I didn't realize you were such a warmonger, Zyne. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
quote:
Actually, SA is working with us to limit terrorists. Four Saudi security men died defending the US consulate. For those who have called in the past for Muslim leaders to denounce such acts, one need look no farther than SA civil, academic, and religious leaders.

Now, I've been keeping my eye on Saudi Arabia very closely - both in their press and in ours. I never let myself forget that it was largely Saudis who masterminded and implemented the 9/11 attacks. Currently, it appears that they took "with us or against us" very seriously.

This is absolutely NOT the case. The Saudis granting Al Qaeda members amnesty is proof that they don't want to curtail the terrorists and actually seek to give them comfort and a safe haven.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sancselfieme:
This is absolutely NOT the case. The Saudis granting Al Qaeda members amnesty is proof that they don't want to curtail the terrorists and actually seek to give them comfort and a safe haven.

Don't you think this statement lacks some nuance?

Like maybe if the Saudis outright condemn Al Qaeda, the imams in the mosques might start calling for a revolution to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family? Maybe it's a situation similar to Arafat really having no chance of making real peace because of the factions in Palestine would have assassinated him outright had he negotiated peaceful co-existence? [Eek!]

[ December 07, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
quote:
I didn't realize you were such a warmonger, Zyne.
I'm not at all, except so far as I am 100% for the stopping of the blowing up of Americans and American stuffs. SA has supposedly been working with us since 9/11, but they continue to fail to control their home-grown terrorists. Either they are lying or incapable, and it doesn't much matter to me which: The country remains an ongoing threat.
 
Posted by Adam Lassek (Member # 1514) on :
 
So in summary, you believe Bush was irresponsible for invading Iraq but you would blithely invade Islam's Holy Land and probably spark all-out jihad against America, even when diplomacy was still an option.
 
Posted by Zyne (Member # 117) on :
 
No, in summary, I mean what I said, and I'm not speculating.
 
Posted by Adam Lassek (Member # 1514) on :
 
C'mon, do you honestly believe ANY muslim anywhere would be won over to our side by America invading and occupying Mecca? That's just about the easiest way to screw this Middle Eastern pooch that I can think of other than turning Saudi Arabia into glass.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Mmmm. Sand to Glass. Oh, no, WAIT, the OIL is RADIOACTIVE!

Sorry, had a little fantasy/nightmare. The reality is that the amnesty was a good move.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-13-surrender_x.htm

You get some guys to give up. Then vigorously pursue, imprison or kill the rest. Now, if this is an open all-purpose amnesty, then no. I'm all in favor of offering amnesty to any al-Qaida sleeper cells still in the US - btw. And then perhaps an unfortunate accident?
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
quote:
Don't you think this statement lacks some nuance?

Like maybe if the Saudis outright condemn Al Qaeda, the imams in the mosques might start calling for a revolution to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family? Maybe it's a situation similar to Arafat really having no chance of making real peace because of the factions in Palestine would have assassinated him outright had he negotiated peaceful co-existence?

If it's a choice between risking civil war in Saudi Arabia, which is an oppressive monarchy in a modern world of spreading democracy, versus letting the terrorists use Saudi Arabia to plan their next attack on the US then I'll choose option A any day. I'm kind of astonished that you wouldn't, Daruma, especially given your pro-war arguments for Iraq and democracy. After all, Saudi at least is a legitimate threat.So what if it's a logistical nightmare, the cost of letting Saudi become even a short term base for terrorists is too high. Iraq was a logistical nightmare and wasn't even a valid security objective, Saudi would be.

[ December 08, 2004, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Sancselfieme ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Hey Sanc, I'm for the democratization of Saudi...but things are a lot different their than the situation in Iraq. I'm just calling it like I see it in terms of the present situation:

1) We all know SA is home to Wahhabbist Imams that preach Al Qaeda philosophy and exhort their followers to take the "path of Jihad."

2) The Government may very well be duplicitous in their promises and actions with the US, but it's on an entirely different level than Saddam's stonewalling, total non-cooperation, belligerence, defiance and brutality.

3) Not every situation has to lead to war. In the case of Saddam, his intransigence made it inevitable -- whether it was Bush in 2002 or any future President. Bush Sr. should've taken him out in '91, and I would have supported Clinton to the hilt had he decided to take care of Saddam during his tenure.

4) Saudi is a legitimate threat like Holland's extremist factions of their muslim community is a threat to film makers that dare to create films critical of Islamic misogony. Doesn't mean we should invade Holland....

5) Without a doubt, the House of Saud covertly supported or paid off the Wahhabbist Imams at worst, and turned a blind eye to the preaching and indoctrination of violence in the madrassas at best -- all to avoid having the Imams publicly condemn them and turn the population against them and their extravagent lifestyles the country's oil wealth provides them. However, their has been significant pressure by the US and UK to cooperate in stopping terrorist operations and seize assets etc. At the very least, SA is making some efforts to help us combat terrorism.

6) Now if it becomes state policy of the House of Saud to support terrorism and attack the US....hey, I won't lose any sleep over the slagging of Mecca and Medina (metaphorically speaking, of course.)
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
Drake, the problem is is that they've tried amnesty before with former muhajideens who were repatriated back and they relapsed and the government was in a bind. Amnesty was the dumbest move in the world -- it's gving them a safe base to plan their next attack. What happens when Al Qaeda strikes again? Having one or two top members who benefitted from that amnesty deal might be the difference between another organized attack on the US or not: do you want to roll the dice and take that chance??? Besides, on a matter of principle Bush stated clearly that if you are not with us completely then you are against us. Succoring terrorists by offering them amnesty which has been absolutely proven to be abused in the past is an act of terrorism. We sure saw how "broken up" those former muhajideens' loyalties were when they regrouped with each other to form Al Qaeda, didn't we? If you want to continue this discussion please find another argument besides, "give amnesty a chance to change these peoples' lives," we already did that, and it didn't work.


Daruma, I don't understand how Saudi Arabia is different from Afghanistan now, in fact, the Saudis are doing things much worse than the Taliban did: they are actively granting amnesty to known terrorists while all the Taliban really did was refuse to go after terrorists in their country. The Saudis are not only doing that, they are giving these terrorists official free passes. They might not have overtly-placed training camps in Saudi Arabia but the principle is still the same: there is no assurance that these terrorists won't strike us again, and there is a very good chance they will.

[ December 08, 2004, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Sancselfieme ]
 
Posted by ATW (Member # 1690) on :
 
If we are going to invade Saudi Arabia, I want us to take Hajar ul Aswad, the Black Stone, and put it in the Smithsonian. It'd make a great conversation piece and we could charge admission to help cover the costs of the war.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1