| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| Uprising in Saudi Arabia |
| 2004-01-26 |
| An extraordinary level of political violence in the tiny city of Sakaka, the capital of a remote province bordering Iraq, has the makings of the beginning of a popular revolution against the ruling al-Saud family. Residents of al-Jouf province say recent months have seen the assassination of the deputy governor and the execution-style killing of Sakaka’s police chief by a group of men who forced their way into his home. Earlier, the region’s top Shariah, or religious law, court judge was shot at point-blank range as he drove to work. Seven men have been arrested for involvement in the shootings, according to Saudi officials, who say the attacks are linked and that the suspects may have had as many as 40 accomplices. ... A Saudi who talked to the Qatar-based satellite-TV station Al Jazeera about suppression and growing instability in the kingdom in September was arrested live on the air, but before he was dragged away, he managed to say what is never heard from any Saudi media outlet. Abdul Aziz al-Tayyar told Al Jazeera by telephone that Saudi security forces had surrounded his home in Riyadh and were preparing to storm the house. As his door was being kicked in, Mr. al-Tayyar used his last minutes of freedom to tell millions of viewers that "all tribesmen are now willing to fight this government... We will protect the rights of our people." |
| Posted by:Former CNN Watcher |
| #3 FS - the full article on the above rebellion which was posted the other day and sited to Straits Times (does Wash Times read the Straights Times, or share a common source, or just read blogs?) indicated that the rebels indeed are full -fledged hardline wahabis, and the dispute with the House of Saud is over local influence and property, NOT religion. And indeed the main security threats the House of Saud has faced in recent months in Riydah, Mecca, Jiddah, al - Asir prov, etc have been from AQ and folks looking more MORE fundie regime. There also seems to be some opposition from folks looking for something more secular, but no evidence I know of of any actual violent opposition from such people, and little of any real strength on the ground - a few feminists, an oddball prince in exile, thats it. The connections between such opposition groups (on both sides) and the factions IN the royal family are byzantine in complexity, and there meaning is highly disputed. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-26 1:16:07 PM |
| #2 The "rights of our people" line leads readers to believe that the overthrow would lead to a more secular state...BUT, I've read accounts that indicate that an overthrow would be BECAUSE the kingdom wasn't Islamic enough--in other words, that revolution would lead to an even *MORE* aggressive Islamic society. Who here could help me sort out these differing viewpoints? |
| Posted by: Flaming Sword 2004-1-26 12:18:35 PM |
| #1 Good. One step closer to a USA protectorate called the former-Saudi-oil-fields. |
| Posted by: Hyper 2004-1-26 10:54:30 AM |