You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Who're they trying to fool?
2003-05-14
by Raid Qusti
Who are we trying to fool? Ourselves or the international community? Neither can be fooled.
Nobody at Rantburg ever bought it...
It’s about time we got our act together. The time of pretending that radicalism does not exist in Saudi Arabia is long past. The time for pretending that we are above errors and could not possibly commit terrorist attacks is no longer with us. It has got to stop. Change must come now. We as a nation cannot afford to leave it to its own slow pace. It’s either now or never. It also must cover all aspects of our life — the school, the mosque, the home, the street, the media.
But you won't. You'll talk for awhile, and the Bad Guys will shut up. Then you'll get tired of it and they'll come back. They never get tired of it...
How can we tell the rest of the world that we are tolerant of other religions and faiths when some of us are not even tolerant of other schools of Islamic thought?
The rest of the world can see your country for what it is: a cesspool of xenophobia and intolerance, ruled by a corrupt oligarchy. You're the ones who're missing that...
How can we expect others to believe that a majority of us are a peace-loving people who denounce extremism and terrorism when some preachers continue to call for the destruction of Jews and Christians, blaming them for all the misery in the Islamic world?
You can't. But you still won't stop.
And the media? It seems that if the media are not flatly denying, they are following the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no evil method. Just a few days ago, when a large terrorist plot was foiled in Riyadh and the terrorists’ hideout was raided, what we read the following day in the local media was the head of the Muslim World League denouncing the act, saying that Islam and terrorism are not linked. The sheikh said that killing innocent people was a crime in Islam.
Nope. Nope. No relationship. It's only coincidence that the all major terror organizations in the world are run by Muslims, and that most of them are run by wahhabis...
We already knew that. But we needed to hear more than that. We needed to hear three questions that are never asked. Like dust, they are swept under the carpet: Why are more and more Saudi young men being fed with radical ideas? Who are the people brainwashing them? How are they being radicalized? And so it happens that so much dust is swept underneath the carpet that it finally bursts out in full view of everybody. At last, the truth that was hidden has come out.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#5  There is another, purely military issue here. The Saudi public is nowhere near as oppressed as the Iraqi people were. In fact, if we tried to pull a military operation without Saudi consent, i.e., invaded the country, we'd be facing a very hostile populace and all that entails. You'd be in a true colonial situation, which we don't want to be in. You don't want your guys constantly facing guerrilla war in a place where the people support guerrillas. Look at Iraq. The people didn't support the regime and, for the most part, didn't support those who tried to wage a guerilla war...that's why things went well...it was a true liberation.

I don't think you'd have that now in SA....

I think this means we're stuck with helping the Saudi royals as much as possible now without overt, massive intervention.

That said, we could indeed wage a Black Ops war in SA, if the Saudis backed it.

Key question: has the Saudi military been completely compromised by Al Queda? If yes, there will be coup. If no, it should be possible to find out who the traitors are.

Also: if the military isn't heavily compromised, the Al Queda must have training camps. Those can be found and destroyed with small units.
Posted by: R. McLeod   2003-05-15 01:47:38  

#4   Personally, I think that Saudi was not dealt with immediately because we DID need there oil. Now, we'll soon be able to buy oil from the Iraqis.

No, I'm not suggesting that we went to war with Iraq to "steal their oil," but I do, personally, believe that its presence was a factor in the timing. With Iraq's oil fully on the market, the Saudis lever will be gone. Much easier to get them to "listen to reason" in that situation.

It's also the kind of thing that you can't pukblicly talk about.

Posted by: Ralph   2003-05-14 15:16:06  

#3  I'm not conflicted. The regime has enough money to buy the kind of support it needs. It doesn't need fighter jets and high technology -- it needs the will to crack down on the ground. The "royal family" is not in danger from the radical camp unless it proves to be too soft on the ground. It's just a matter of time before the radicals directly attack the royals. Then we'll see if the royals have what it takes.
Posted by: Tom   2003-05-14 14:26:29  

#2  I've wondered about that, too, CC. I sense there is a prioritization of battles in the WoT within the Bush administration, perhaps based on urgency: Afghanistan first, then Iraq; then Syria, Iran, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, with the order in which they will be fought not yet apparent.

Many criticize Bush for "sucking up to" the Saudi royal family, and conspiracy theories involving the Saudis and the Bush family abound; but I have a hard time believing Bush & Co. aren't fully aware that Saudi Arabia is a big part (even the biggest part) of the terrorism problem, or that they aren't fully committed to dealing with the Saudi problem.

But how to explain the apparent "kid glove" approach we've been taking to the Saudis? I think the answer is that the Saudis are being left til the later stages of this war, in part to see what they can accomplish on their own without US military intervention or other harsh treatment. If, after we've disposed of Syria and Iran and NorK, the Saudis finally see the light, then good; if they don't... well we'll deal with that when we must.

Certainly, articles like this one are a good sign, if nothing else.
Posted by: Dave D.   2003-05-14 14:23:55  

#1  I'm conflicted. What measure of support do we provide to the current Saudi regime? The context to answer must include what the alternative to the existing regime would be. If we provide the same level of support as in the past, do we not simply carry forward with the status quo and allow the Saudi regime to continue to ride on our military? However, too less and we risk losing S.A. to the radical camp.
Posted by: ColoradoConservative   2003-05-14 13:16:24  

00:00