Article

2004-05-17 Arabia

Saudi royal guard aided al-Qaeda in Riyadh bombings

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-05-17 1:22:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I could easily see something like that happening in the US. There are hundreds of thousands of "American"-muslims eager and willing to help (or look the other way) their brothers from abroad to carry out attacks on American Soil. I believe that those "American"-muslims are far more dangerous than muslim terrorists from outside the country.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But a traitor moves among those within the gate freely, and his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys are heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to their victims and wears their face and their garments, and appeals to the baseness which lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of the nation; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."

Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 1:55:11 AM|| 2004-05-17 1:55:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Three prominent clerics declared the terrorists were "devout" men and called on people to disobey the regime's request.

And these "three prominent clerics" are still walking around free after openly advocating sedition? This is a clear symptom of the real problem at hand. The terrorists are merely a byproduct of these beturbaned thugs.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-17 2:12:11 AM|| 2004-05-17 2:12:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The Saudi OPEC oil barons having been playing the American public for suckers for years, while bankrolling every Wahhabi-cult-linked terrorist group in the world. Not helping matters what-so-ever are some of the largest American, British, Dutch and other multinational oil companies which have been in bed with the 'royal family' of Arabian terrorist promoting backstabbers.

Soon, after the two interconnected rouge jihad promoting states of Syria and Iran are dealt with firmly (action is forthcoming, count on it) the House of Sa'ud must be toppled, and the vast Arabian crude oil reserves protected from the jihadic enemy (if possible).

The missing link concerning Sa'udi Arabia's enormous petroleum infrastructure is, will al-Qa'ida's planted terrorist moles already deeply hidden among the thousands of oil workers employed in Sa'udi Arabia, collapses the Sa'udi economy by way of multi-targeted acts of devastating sabotage, which would also immediately result in a panic on Wall Street, coupled with the commodity, currency and bond markets.

Any major attacks on the enormous Sa'udi oil fields will trigger a rush to buy crude oil contracts and therefore increasing global prices to levels resulting in dangerous hyperinflation, not seen since the last time the Sa'udis triggered the Arab Oil Embargo against America for assisting Israel against invading Arab states during the Yom Kippur war of October-1973.

It's high time we had the Sa'udis over a barrel!

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-05-17 2:18:27 AM|| [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133085/posts] 2004-05-17 2:18:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 It's high time we had the Sa'udis over a barrel!

It's also high time that America divert its fabulous technological expertise towards supplanting internal combustion driven transportation. Sadly, an H2 infrastructure is still gated by onboard storage within the vehicles themselves. New metal hydride chemistries and composite containment tanks show great promise but need massive infusions of grant based research to drive them towards fruition.

So long as big-oil and the automotive industry are able to collude in steering America towards continued dependency upon Middle East petroleum and oil in general, our nation's military and economic security are dangerously compromised.

Regarding the Saudis, at some point, we must be able to say; "Let them drink oil."

Until then, we are at the mercy of the very worst sort of blackguards and thugs known on earth.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-17 2:50:41 AM|| 2004-05-17 2:50:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Zester,
"And these "three prominent clerics" are still walking around free after openly advocating sedition? This is a clear symptom of the real problem at hand. The terrorists are merely a byproduct of these beturbaned thugs."

This is because the branch of the the Royal Family that advocates breaking all ties with the US is protecting those clerics. Remember Prince Naif, the one who still says that Sept 11th was carried out by the CIA and the Mossad? He is part of that branch.
Both branches do agree on one thing: that they need the Imans and Mullahs to preach hatred towards Americans and Jews to divert the saudis' attention away from the rising unemployement and the rapid fall of living standards.
Those clerics were probably put on probation. We will not cut your heads off this time but, you have to promise to double your dose of hatred towards jews and westerners, mainly Americans, in your sermons and to never, ever, mention the Royal Family again.

Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 3:48:09 AM|| 2004-05-17 3:48:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 A Hydrogen economy will do diddly squat to solve the problem. What is your energy source to produce the hydrogen? H2 technology is just greenie snake oil. As I have pointed out before there are only three options to become free of oil imports.
1. Build hundreds of nuclear power stations.
2. Build a massive coal based syn-gas and syn-oil infrastructure
3. Build massive infrastructure to import LNG, although this still leaves the USA dependent on imports.

Take your pick?

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-17 3:49:06 AM|| 2004-05-17 3:49:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I still reckon a good way off of Saudi black slag is ethanol.

Cars already run on it, no need to change the infrastructure. Just need to modify engines: no plastic/aluminium (i think) parts will go as the ethanol eats it, but everything else = OK. I remember ages ago I posted links to rantburg about the specs of converting an engine so it takes ethanol.

Ethanol can be produced by growing corn-stalks or non-THC Hemp (ie: hippies can't get high off it).

YES it is more expensive than Saudi Black Slag.

BUT it is BETTER than paying billions daily to people who are trying to KILL us!

I'd rather pay double and be weaned off the habit.

Several car companies already make ethanol cars you can buy one today. I posted that link here ages ago, too.

Here's a different site from Canada. Ignore the greenie stuff and just focus on this: freedom from Saudi black Slag (oil)

http://www.ethanol-crfa.ca/vehiclehome.htm

Here's a site that tells you how to modify your EXISTING vehicle to run on ethanol fuel:

http://terrasol.home.igc.org/alky/alky1.htm

Ethanol used to be used (and i think still is in some cases) to operate farm machinery. Farmers loved it as they could make their own fuel when needed.

Nuclear is not the answer. We have gas reserves before we go Nuclear.

Nuclear can never be the answer because the pollution it produces lasts for millenia but human civilizations only have detailed memories for a few hundred years.

Case in point: old Nuclear dumping grounds that no longer have warning signs on them. Case in point: people now living in the exclusion zone of Chernobyl less than 30 years after.

Hidden environmental, social and medical costs associated with cleaning up after the nuclear industry mean it is actually more expensive than other seemingly less efficient but greener technologies.

Posted by Anon1 2004-05-17 6:07:17 AM|| 2004-05-17 6:07:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Anon1 - Ethanol from agricultural products takes more energy (about twice as much) to produce as it yields in energy. So for every barrel of oil equivalent of ethanol you produce, you have to import 2 barels of oil. Moronic is not adequate to describe this lunacy.

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-17 6:19:09 AM|| 2004-05-17 6:19:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Drill on the North Slope of Alaska

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-05-17 7:34:12 AM|| 2004-05-17 7:34:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Deacon Blues,

Bingo!

Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 7:36:37 AM|| 2004-05-17 7:36:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Gotta disagree,Phil.H2 fuel cell is the way to go.
The probles are,for now:
High initial cost for fuel cell engines.
This will drop with improvents in technology and manufacturing.I heard on a docu the other day that Germany has 1 or 2 subamrines that are operating on fuel cell tech(can you back this up TGA)

And infrastructure,I believe the oil industry is instramental in delaying this.

Posted by Raptor 2004-05-17 8:59:11 AM|| 2004-05-17 8:59:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Yeah, Raptor, sure.

You still haven't answered the key question -- where's the H2 come from? It takes energy to produce it, where's that energy supposed to come from?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-17 9:22:55 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-05-17 9:22:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Phil B gets to the heart of the problem we face with a new energy source, and that is where do we get the hydrogen? Something has to be converted to make hydrogen, and that takes energy. Petroleum was the product of chemical reactions powered by the sun millions of years ago, sort of a solar savings account. Now we are withdrawing from that account.

The answer is that we will have to use and develop lots of alternatives to oil. Crude oil is a relatively easy source of energy to exploit, which is why it is so hard to get off of. Since we as a people have not had the will to look seriously down different paths since the embargo of '73, maybe prices will kick us collectively in the butt to make it happen.

The debate of which way to go is a matter of public policy and not the bailiwick of closed door meetings. However, I do not think that our present national leadership, and I include the congress in this, have the courage and fortitude to make things like getting off Saudi crude a reality.

When the people lead, the leaders will follow. I think that this is one of those situations.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-05-17 9:38:18 AM|| 2004-05-17 9:38:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.

A4617 - And in John Kerry we have an ambitious fool.

All Alaska Drillers - Yes, but, how to we get past the eco-cabal in the congress?

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-17 11:54:16 AM|| 2004-05-17 11:54:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Big Ed. We could stage a big rally to shave, I mean save, the whales and carribou and put them all in a nature preserve.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-05-17 12:10:31 PM|| 2004-05-17 12:10:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Source of Hydrogen? Duh, water.

Posted by Dog Bites Trolls 2004-05-17 12:39:23 PM|| 2004-05-17 12:39:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Source of Hydrogen? Duh, water.

Very good DBT, but the problem is where do you get all the electricty needed to extract the H2 from the H2O? Electrical generating plants are having trouble keeping up with current load.

Posted by Steve 2004-05-17 12:54:47 PM|| 2004-05-17 12:54:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 It's high time we started drilling at home so Persian Gulf oil can remain there, in the sand & under the warm waters of the Gulf.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-05-17 1:22:22 PM|| [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133085/posts] 2004-05-17 1:22:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 What is your energy source to produce the hydrogen?

1. Build hundreds of nuclear power stations.

Nuclear power can be operated safely. Merely examine France's power generation program. Sadly, in America our government only had expertise in building nuclear bombs and handed the reins of power plant building over to commercial interests who low-bid these vital and potentially dangerous facilities.

To paraphrase Hyman Rickover:

"The problem with commercial nuclear power is that you do not have the military option of taking wrongdoers outside and shooting them."

We need to build many nuclear power plants thereby consolidating the eletrical generation needed for hydrolizing water on a massive scale. This will reduce the environmental impact of scattering all sorts of less effecient generating sources (solar, wind, tidal) plus reduce incipient losses in gridding their power output. Such building must be accompanied by similar thrusts towards the attainment of fusion based power generation. Our current natural gas delivery infrastructure can be reconfigured to deliver hydrogen rather well. Modern valve and interlock technology, along with compact inexpensive hydrogen sensors have rendered many originally valid safety concerns irrelevant.

For an extremely interesting overview, I recommend that people peruse "Taking Lasers Beyond the National Ignition Facility."

America has the technological expertise to overcome it's unnecessary dependence on oil. The Alaskan slopes only contain a few months or years of operating capacity for our country and are definitely not the answer. We need to get unhooked from the slow drip IV of death that Arabian oil represents.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-17 1:34:00 PM|| 2004-05-17 1:34:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 The debate of which way to go is a matter of public policy and not the bailiwick of closed door meetings. However, I do not think that our present national leadership, and I include the congress in this, have the courage and fortitude to make things like getting off Saudi crude a reality.

Thank you, Alaska Paul, for making sure this did not escape our discussion. Special interests (i.e., Detroit and big-oil) are buying off every vote imaginable to prevent America from attaining oil independence. This needs to be a top priority and it is not at this time.

Oil has enormous "hidden" costs in terms of pollution and other side effects (cancer, spill cleanup, etc.) that, if properly accounted for, make it insanely more expensive that current economic projections exhibit.

The Saudis are not our friends and never have been. It's time to change dance partners and bring our own technological solutions to the table. All leaders of every political stripe who have prevented this in the preceeding decades will one day face condemnation for their shortsighted policies regarding this matter.

If America cannot bring itself to find a solution to oil dependence, we must gird for a routine and regular string of 9-11s in the future.

Such a thing is simply not acceptable.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-17 1:43:47 PM|| 2004-05-17 1:43:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Nuclear can never be the answer because the pollution it produces lasts for millenia but human civilizations only have detailed memories for a few hundred years.

The concerns over nuclear waste and its potential hazards to future generations pale in comparison to the clear and present danger of oil-funded terrorists. Which do you honestly fear more? What does the future postulated unaccounted-for and unshielded waste matter if we are all dead? We must solve the more difficult political problem of oil-funded terrorism by getting off the oil teet. Waste storage is/has been a solvable techincal problem. I have lived, worked and slept near (measured in feet) reactors and fuel storage faciities for years. Not one of them has threatened to kill me in creative ways.

For an overview of the future of nuclear power, read this Sandia Lab article.

Posted by Zpaz 2004-05-17 7:11:12 PM|| 2004-05-17 7:11:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 What are the French, Belgians, and Japanese doing with their nuclear waste? I've never seen an article in an American publication on this topic.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-05-17 7:15:02 PM|| 2004-05-17 7:15:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 All we need is the fabulous Pogue carb.

Posted by Shipman 2004-05-17 7:16:17 PM|| 2004-05-17 7:16:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Nuclear can never be the answer because the pollution it produces lasts for millenia but ....

Why is everyone so goddamm irrational over nuclear power. Pollution is minimal and wastes can easily be disposed off by putting them in deep holes in the ground.

Ontario (Canada) has solved the (PR) problem by calling the technology used in its dozen or so nuclear power stations 'Slowpoke'.

Posted by Phil_B 2004-05-17 7:22:47 PM|| 2004-05-17 7:22:47 PM|| Front Page Top

10:29 Aussie Wife
03:37 Mark Espinola
07:53 Anonymous4937
07:06 Bravo Bravo
06:36 Brit: Tourist
06:33 ViroBono
06:11 Brit: Tourist
19:50 docob
19:35 Antiwar TROLL
08:06 B
01:46 Anonymous4617
01:26 Rafael
01:24 Mark Espinola
01:10 Super Hose
01:04 Anonymous4828
01:02 Super Hose
00:58 Super Hose
00:32 Mark Espinola
00:25 Mike Sylwester
00:15 Laurence of the Rats
00:09 Paul Moloney
00:01 Long Hair Republican
23:56 Atomic Conspiracy
23:54 ruprecht