Saudis arrest 172 in terror plot

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Apr 27, 2007.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    *
    I wonder what he Saudis will do to those who were arrested. Will they stand trial?
     
  2. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #2
    Of course they will. A really short trial. And an extremely brief imprisonment. Followed by a sudden stop at the end of a short fall...
     
  3. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #3
    Ain't it funny how most of the 9/11 crew were Saudis and here again they
    are Saudis, but we're over in Iraq and Afghanistan looking for Saudis.:confused:
     
  4. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    The terrorists happened to be Saudi, but they were part of al Qaeda, which anyone who subscribes to their philosophy can be a part of.
     
  5. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #5
    It's not about nationality, it's about belief system. The philosophy arguably started under wahabism in what is now Saudi Arabia, but it recruits widely, is embraced by the Taliban and the highest concentration of madrassas are in Pakistan.

    At least the Saudis are doing something. Not like Saddam was trying to root out terrorism when he was in charge.

    Looks like the royal executioner has his work cut out for him in a couple months.
     
  6. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #6
    That's assuming that the source of the article didn't fake the whole story. I can't say that I trust the meat of the article much at all without pounds of skepticism.
     
  7. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #7
    Here we go again. :rolleyes: I've mentioned in several threads that the Saudis were busting Al Quaida operatives and their weapon stockpiles going back to '91. I witnessed several of these busts personally and they were holding Saudi passports. Interesting how it wasn't newsworthy outside the kingdom at the time.

    Believe me, the Kingdom of SA doesn't take kindly to people whether natives or outsiders that want to overthrow their government.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    What terrorism?
     
  9. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #9
    Now, this is shameful. It's the exact same lies that the neocons peddled to the American public, and which have been thoroughly debunked. THERE WERE NO LINKS BETWEEN AL-QUADA AND SADDAM. Commission after commission established that.

    In fact, many of us who were opposed to this war, knew that long before the first shot was fired. We didn't need any bi-partisan commissions. Why? Because anyone with even basic knowledge about the ME, knew that the secular dictator Saddam and the fundamentalis extremist religious terrorists were mortal enemies. It was Bin Laden's fondest dream to overthrow Saddam and implant his organization in Iraq (and we did it for him!). To Saddam, therefore it was vital to root out any and all challengers to his power, such as AQ.

    Further, in general, Saddam was not engaged in terrorism. It was in fact remarkable how free from state-sponsored terrorism Iraq was - something one couldn't say about f.ex. Iran or Syria. Further, there were many more terrorists living in every ME country (and every Muslim country, such as f.ex. Pakistan or Indonesia), than in Iraq: take your pick, whether Jordan or Saudi Arabia, or Algeria or wherever - even Turkey. Saddam had an iron hand in controlling his population - far stronger than Saudi Arabia.

    To bring up Saudi Arabia as a "good" example of fighting terrorism as contrasted with Saddam - what a monumental lie and joke.

    The only activity that was even slightly related to terrorism by Saddam, was his paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers about $25K after the fact. He had no control and no sponsoring of the actual attacks themselves (and those payments were exclusively to bolster his popularity and street cred with the Arab masses). There was no terrorism related activity against America or any other country. As for harboring terrorists? The only people related to terrorism in Iraq were old Palestinian retired terrorists who escaped to Iraq 20 years or more ago - they were no longer active. That's it. Sum total of Saddam's terror links - what a joke.

    Meanwhile Saudi Arabia? A continuing hotbed of terrorist recruitment, massive financing and ideology, with schools still pumping out the same oficially sanctioned toxic propaganda that gave us the majority of terrorists in the world today. Yeah, Saudi Arabia is so much better for the fight against terrorism than Iraq was under Saddam :rolleyes:

    The crying shame of this entire debacle is that Iraq was pretty unique in the ME, as a terrorist free country, and the most secular, where the population, nor the government had anything to do with terrorism. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but there wasn't a single car bombing in Iraq since the times of Babylon. Now, we've gone in, and transformed that into the biggest terrorist factory on the planet. Way to go, right wing nuts, way to go.

    So this shameful canard by the right should not stand. What a disgusting lie, and a disgusting failure of ignorance-based policy.
     
  10. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #10
    Interestingly enough, there was recorded documentation of the US supporting Bin Laden during the early days (in the Afghan-Russian wars of the 1980's) and apparently it shows that a pawn can turn upon a former ally.

    http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=osama13&date=20010913

    Too much machinations when it would have been better to let sleeping dogs lie.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    They still got those anti-American madrassas in Saudi Arabia?
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    '91 you say? Interesting. When did US troops first arrive on Saudi soil again?
     
  13. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #13
    I don't think so but I have some extra Turkish tea biscuits if you are interested.
     
  14. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #14
    Matawa U. at a minimum.
     
  15. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #15
    Nice try. Wahabbism was started in the mid 1700s before the US was even a country. I'm just pointing out when I witnessed the capture of weapon caches which they were putting together at LEAST since the creation of the Kingdom by Abdul Aziz in 1926 (prior to the birth of Bush btw!).

    Spinning radical Islam as some creation by the neocons from what were historically peaceful camel herders until our jets roared overhead just ain't going to cut it.
     
  16. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #16
    Kind of makes you wish such an effective leader was the mayor of the city you live in or perhaps the Governor of your state, don't it?
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    I had no idea you were that old.

    Bush Snr was not a neo-conservative, was he?
     
  18. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #18
    Well, I'd never defend Saddam - he was a monster. No question. My point rather is that nobody benefits when we interfere in other countries affairs. Like I've said before in greater detail, the only time an intervention is justified is when invasion of another country takes place. And so, I supported the first Iraq war. Saddam invaded Kuwait. We were right to go to war. Also jibes with international law - there is right to defence and no right to regime change in absence of armed aggression. Incidentally, we had broad international and U.N. support in Iraq 1, plus we ended up getting paid for it... what a contrast to the current disaster.

    So what to do, with a native born dictator? Leave him be. There is no right to regime change by other countries. And that is wise - because the change has to come, organically from within the society itself... no matter how painful and bloody sometimes (as we liberated ourselves from the Brits, and then also had a Civil War... our internal affair). Because when you impose a political or economic system on a society that has not evolved to it on its own, well the results are as we see today in Iraq.

    My position is simple: obey international law, which in this case is very wise - a result of time tested historical experience. So: mind our own business, unless attacked, or our allies are attacked (or really anyone is attacked), and it is feasible to respond (nuclear armed China - no, not feasible). Meanwhile let indiginous societies deal with their indigineous systems as they wish - sometimes painfully, as we had to in our history. If Muslim countires want to create hell on earth in their own countries - they can go right on. Not our problem. By interfering, we take their problem as ours - including refugees. Not worth it, by a long shot quite apart from the immorality and illegality of it.
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    with this story, there seems to be an unspoken "look! the saudis are finally serious about the GWoT!"

    when in reality, the rulers are just trying to maintain their tenuous grasp on rule. had their intelligence indicated these individuals were looking externally rather than internally, i highly doubt we'd be seeing this arrest story today or anytime soon.
     
  20. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #20
    I think Zim has it right on the money.

    Gee now that the oil fields are safe again, maybe they'll drop the price of
    oil to celebrate.


    Riiiiight
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    This is a bit of a sleight of hand, the Saudi government is talking out of both sides of their mouth. They're allowing people to finance and support Al Qaeda while busting them at the same time, and this is similar to what Saddam was doing, as long as a few AQ members wandered in and out of his country, everything was fine, but the minute any of them got serious about messing with the oil fields, you can be sure he'd 'prosecute' them as fast as the Saudis.

    Furthermore, there's your implied connection of AQ with Saddam.



    This is interesting. May I ask what you were doing there and how you came to witness such an event?
     
  22. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #22
    He could tell you but then he'd have to kill you.:rolleyes:
     
  23. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    Well, if he can mention that he saw it, he can release some details about why he was there. You can't cherry-pick details from something that's classified. Obviously, Swarm can choose not to answer, but I was merely curious.
     
  24. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #24
    Firstly, I'd like a source for this theory. Secondly, it's a charge that could be levelled at the British Government right up to 9/11.
     
  25. OldCorpse macrumors 65816

    OldCorpse

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    compost heap
    #25
    Sources? This is simply not true. There were zero, zero connections between Saddam and AQ - he didn't "allow" any AQ people in or out. This has been established repeatedly by two separate bipartisan commissions. And really, we didn't need commissions - any basic knowledge would have told us that, since AQ and Saddam were mortal enemies. It's like claiming that Israel was shielding Nazis after WWII and "allowing" them in and out of Israel. Totally absurd. If you heard someone make that claim, you wouldn't need multiple commissions to establish that it's an absurd lie - a bit of historical knowledge would have told you that. Same with Saddam and AQ. AQ saw Saddam as a major obstacle to their designs in the ME. They desperately wanted Saddam out - he was a secular dictator, and they wanted a caliphate. Meanwhile, Saddam was interested in preserving his power, not being overthrown by AQ - besides, he didn't share the uncontrollable AQ designs for caliphate over the Muslim world... any association with AQ would have weakened his position, and brought him trouble internationally as well. Totally, totally absurd.
     

Share This Page