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
Attack on US consulate in Saudi comes amid mounting anti-American feelings
2004-12-08
RIYADH - The spectacular attack against the US consulate in Jeddah, claimed by the local branch of the Al Qaeda network, came to the backdrop of rising anti-American sentiment in Saudi Arabia, fueled by the ongoing conflict in Iraq.
Rising?
US policy, chiefly the continued occupation of Iraq, has helped radicalize young Saudis, a number of whom have gone to the neighboring country to join the fight against US forces or have been caught attempting to cross the border, clueless pundits who are just trying to fill airtime and get their names in the newspapers say. But they argue that local support for Islamist militants of the type who stormed the US consulate in the Red Sea city Monday is negligible and on the decline.
Which is why the local population stoned the instigators ...
That, at least, is the official view, which holds that the militants are a "deviant" minority. "I don't think they still enjoy the support they had a year ago. Now they have no support," commented Sheikh Mohsen al-Awaji, a moderate Islamist. "Al Qaeda claims to be targeting US interests, but the victims of Monday's attack were not American," he said.
"Al Qaeda is just too sloppy," he continued as he expressed his true feelings.
"My impression is that this group does not have much support, although there are some who sympathize with it," said liberal academic Khaled al-Dakheel. The "cultural environment" in Saudi Arabia encourages radicalization, he said. "I am referring to the education system ... and a tendency to look at issues from a religious point of view, sometimes from a narrowly defined religious point of view," Dakheel said.
Fatwa against this guy in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
US President George W. Bush on Monday warmly thanked Saudi authorities for their quick response to the attack on the consulate, as Riyadh vowed to hunt down the terrorists until they were uprooted. But while Saudi Arabia remains a US ally despite post-September 11 strains, "the vast majority of Saudis object to American policies," Awaji said. Following Bush's reelection for a second term, "the Saudis look at the American people as supporters of this administration. This will create trouble for Americans everywhere," he said.
Of course the American people officially support our government. It's called "democracy". You might want to try it, your cousins in Iraq are about to ...
Dakheel concurred that the situation in Iraq was "fueling anti-American feelings here and in (other parts of) the region."
As if they need an excuse.
But Dakheel said he did not believe that growing anti-US feelings translated into increased support for Al Qaeda terrorism. "People are anti-American, but the majority don't think this (violence) is the right way to oppose US policy in the region," he said.
"No, no! Certainly not! Please keep your Marines at home!"
Posted by:Steve White

#16  Increae in anti-American feelings? Must mean we are winning.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-12-08 6:29:20 PM  

#15  Your sentiment is on mark, 2b, but as Steve says, even if we were energy independent, Islamofascists would still want the Caliphate, and would have plenty of money to terrorize. Certainly not as much, but think of countries that import oil. Off the top of my head, Japan, S. Korea, Italy, Spain, Germany, among others. They may not import all from the Kingdom, but as long as a large part of that oil comes from ME, there will be plenty of money available (How much did AQ need to commit 9/11?)from private parties to finance terrorism and countries (Syria, Iran) willing to aid and abet it.
Posted by: chicago mike   2004-12-08 2:01:49 PM  

#14  we'd be much better off if we didn't need their oil. Plus, if we make new fuel techonologies available and they become cost effective, it would certainly devalue the price of their oil. It's a win/win all the way around. There would be plenty of work and markets left for you oil people if we open ANWAR and drill in the Gulf.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-08 12:49:18 PM  

#13  Steve---you hit the nail on the head. The HUGE wealth transfers due to the sale of oil from a bunch of psychopaths is the issue. We in the industrialized are literally financing our own destruction. The US knows it. Australia knows it. Lots of countries know it. Lots of countries choose to ignore it. Countries like Communist China encourage it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-12-08 11:45:30 AM  

#12  They might still be trying to whack us, but we would be freer to whack them. We could put Plan DotCom into operation;-)
Posted by: Spot   2004-12-08 10:59:54 AM  

#11  Steve,

So very true!
Posted by: Anonymous4724   2004-12-08 10:31:27 AM  

#10  When have there not been anti-american feelings in the ME? I am so sick of those people repeating the same bullshit. Those feelings have always been there. They just hide them when it is convenient... like for example when the US save their asses from other tyrants.
Posted by: Anonymous4724   2004-12-08 10:28:46 AM  

#9  2b, it ain't about the oil, it's about expansionist fascist islam. Sure, the Saudis and Iranians use the oil money to fund attacks, but even if the United States was 100% energy indepentant, some one would buy their oil. And they'd still be trying to kill us.
Posted by: Steve   2004-12-08 10:24:49 AM  

#8  and constant war in the middle east is economically viable?

You are using the same logic that dims use to oppose the war on terror. The plan isn't perfect so we should do nothing. It's clear that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, even if we do drill Anwar. So let's get started now, instead of later.

Fuel cell technology isn't economically viable yet.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-08 8:54:54 AM  

#7  "I do NOT understand why we simply don't make fuel cell technology available tomorrow."
Because it does not create energy -- it takes it from a fuel like hydrogen, methane, or natural gas.
Posted by: Tom   2004-12-08 8:48:06 AM  

#6  Oh.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-12-08 8:20:55 AM  

#5  I do NOT understand why we simply don't make fuel cell technology available tomorrow.

Because it's not economically feasible.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-12-08 8:14:18 AM  

#4  reading today's rantburg, I do NOT understand why we simply don't make fuel cell technology available tomorrow. It would end this mess for once and for all. Nothing else will do it, except perhaps another form of fuel.

This is a mess. The leaders of these countries are evil and are more interested in assuring their own empires than they are interested in prosperity. And democracy threatens their power.

Our own countrymen on the left were raised in such a bubble that they are still scratching their heads and wondering why those peace birds did not work.

We need to get out of the middle east - and I don't mean troops - I mean oil. Let the Turks and Saudi's cut their deals with Russia and China only to find America kicking their behinds, once again, with superior technology.

Fuel cell and other technology IS currently available. The current oil companies could be kept busy in Alaska and the gulf. But what they already aren't supplying could be produced, here at home, within five years, if we really wanted. It would end this mess for once and for all.

I don't understand why Bush and our current elected officials do not embrace the idea of providing enough oil here at home to keep things moving AND also providing fuel cells and other forms of energy to make up the difference.

Jeesh...let's get a clue. These tyrants would nuke their own countries if they thought they could maintain their own power.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-08 7:39:06 AM  

#3  Oddly enough, there is a matching rise in anti-Saudi sentiment in the States. Not just here at Rantburg, but in the mainstream -- my evidence being an anti-Saudi quip Jay Leno included in a recent monologue. Apparently, Leno's audience is Red Staters, so he tailors his jokes to appeal to the majority (albeit slim) of Americans. The Saudis would be wise to be more circumspect about their feelings: our soldiers are actually effective, our President has the elephant's memor, and Iraqi oil production is steadily increasing.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-12-08 7:20:06 AM  

#2  Y'know, I can almost "see" the expats who work in the Dhahran Core Area coming out for a smoke - sticking closely together and slipping off to one side of the plaza area trying to be inconspicuous - and being eyeballed by the Saudis, who spend more time smoking than working. I'll bet the ongoing experience will give some of the expats the reason they've been looking for to quit. It sucked like an F5 the last year I was there (2003) - I'll bet it's 10x worse now. Everything comes to an end - time to leave, guys.
Posted by: .com   2004-12-08 1:44:24 AM  

#1  If the attack would have been marginally successful (dead Americans), they would have had plenty of support.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2004-12-08 1:12:02 AM  

00:00