Posted on 09/18/2001 7:24:50 PM PDT by Boyd
Abdelaziz al-Omari has been listed by the US as one of the suspected hijackers of the United Airlines Flight 175 that crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center last week.
Not so, says Alsharq al-Awsat, a leading Saudi daily. Earlier this week, the newspaper published an interview with a man with the same name and date of birth but who insists his passport was stolen in 1995 in Denver, Colorado.
"I'm not the one who hijacked and blew up the plane because on that day I was in Riyadh and I still am," he told the newspaper. "I say this in all honesty and to protect the reputation of my dear country."
About half the suspects in the suicide attacks on the US have names of families from Saudi Arabia - in addition to Osama bin Laden, who was born in the kingdom but was stripped of his nationality in 1994.
This concentration has been greeted with alarm in the kingdom, a key US ally that has been struggling to balance strong US ties with rising anti-US popular sentiment.
Similar stories casting doubt on the Saudi nationality of other suspects have appeared in recent days in the Saudi press, underlining the kingdom's eagerness to distance itself from the attacks.
Ghazi al-Gosaibi, Saudi ambassador in London, says one of the supposed hijackers died two years ago, another one was in Jeddah at the time and a third was helping the FBI.
Whatever the US investigation reveals about the identity of the suspects, Saudi Arabia faces tough choices. The attacks in the US and strong Saudi backing of US retaliation could have domestic ramifications, reviving government concerns about domestic opposition.
Saudi Arabia's Islamist opposition rose in reaction to the 1991 Gulf war and the arrival of US troops on Saudi soil. It accused the regime of corruption and questioned its Islamic credentials. The voices of opposition, however, subsided in recent years after Crown Prince Abdullah, a staunch Arab nationalist with a reputation for honesty, took over running the day-to-day affairs of the kingdom.
But Saudi Arabia had been warning for months that the threat of terrorism has been heightened by popular disillusionment with US policies in the region - particularly Washington's anti-Iraqi stance and, more recently, its apparent backing for Israel's campaign to crush the Palestinian uprising against occupation. A spate of recent attacks against foreigners was officially blamed on disputes over the illegal alcohol trade but analysts have suspected political motives.
"If Saudi Arabia is seen to be going blindly behind the US this would undermine further the legitimacy of the regime," warns Mai Yamani, research fellow at London's Royal Institute for International Affairs. "They are stuck between the US and the people."
Concerns over stability might partially explain the little noticed change at the Saudi government's intelligence agency two weeks before the attacks on the US. Prince Nawaf, brother and close adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah, took over from Prince Turki al-Feisal, who had held the post since the 1980s.
Prince Turki has sought unsuccessfully to rein in Afghanistan's radical Taliban movement, which is harbouring Mr bin Laden, and to persuade it to provide information about Saudi nationals in his network.
Diplomats say the US is aware Saudi Arabia will have to tread cautiously in its support for the US. The kingdom's need to highlight the independence of its policies led to tensions with the US over the investigation into the 1996 Khobar bombing, which killed 19 US servicemen.
"We're aware of the anti-western feelings in elements of the population and we know how difficult it is for the government to address these points; we don't want to make it any more difficult," says a European diplomat.
Saudi newspapers highlighted last week that the eradication of terror should also be directed against Israeli policies, which one publication accused of "state terrorism." Western diplomats say pressure has been exercised on Israel in recent days to restrain its military action and facilitate Arab backing for the US.
Mr al-Gosaibi says the US has stressed it will operate in a coalition and members expect to be consulted before action is taken. "If this happens, Saudi Arabia will share its judgement with the US on any proposed course of action," he says. "If, however, the United States decides to take unilateral action, military or otherwise, with no consultation, Saudi Arabia will not feel responsible for the consequences of such action."
A potential participation in a coalition against other Muslim countries - Afghanistan is the current focus because it harbours Mr bin Laden - could have the benefit of ridding Saudi Arabia of a big headache. On the other hand, if bin Laden associates should survive attacks by a coalition that includes Saudi Arabia, they might turn their wrath against the kingdom. So far, Mr bin Laden's focus has been solely on the US.
"An attack on Afghanistan that is a botched coup and that does not get rid of the problem will backfire on all conservative regimes in the region," warns a Gulf official. "And if many civilians are killed there will be a religious backlash and accusations of double standards, which are already there because of Israel."
My dear brother and sister FReepers,
At this, of all times in my lifetime, I would like nothing more than to be able to read these threads and reply to them. I have much I would like to say.
BUT, I cannot!
Why?
Because I am trying hard to raise the finances needed to keep FreeRepublic up and running so that we can continue to share valuable information and respond to it.
I beg you, if you have not yet donated to FreeRepublic this quarter, do so now!
If you have already donated, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND GOD BLESS YOU, please ping your friends, and FReep on...!
I realize you are giving to lots of Relief efforts and I encourage you to do so. But we need to help FR too. Where would we be right now without it?
If you have no money, please come and bump the Fundraiser Thread.
I would really like to reach our goal quickly so that I and the rest of the dedicated FReepers who are working the Fundraiser Threads can participate in what is undeniably the most important time in FreeRepublic's history.
WHERE WOULD YOU GET YOUR NEWS FROM IF FREEREPUBLIC WASN'T HERE?<--click here
Support FreeRepublic! Support the U.S.A. <--click here
See also:
Good questions, and ones that need to be answered ... soon.
OBL is smart, crafty, and cunning. He hates that the US supports the "corrupt" (his word) government and monarch in Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't put it past him to try to damage that relationship.
OTOH I'm sure Saudi has its share of people who don't care much for the US. Both possibilities need to be investigated.
As for your closing comment, I don't think five years of planning went into this attack. Especially, considering the intelligence hardware #42 gave our enemies. Alas, five years or five months, we were sitting ducks.
IMO, two reasons:
1. Unless things have changed since I last used a passport, they don't often check the validity of them. For example, I'm not sure records of all passports issued and/or reported stolen/lost are on a computer somewhere accessible by customs agents at any entry point.
2. Since Saudi Arabia is generally considered a moderate Islamic state and somewhat of a US ally, persons carrying those passports will face less scrutiny than someone from Iraq or Syria.
I don't think it's any accident that some of these guys have Saudi, Egyptian, UAE, or other Moslem nations that are more neutral or friendly to the US.
Which brings me to the last point for now: who guards their borders? How strict or lax are their immigration policies? I can easily envision a national of a state we don't care for emigrating to a state we like until they can leave with that state's passport and then come to the US with less scrutiny.
Am I right, wrong, or do I simply need to get my next hat made out of some substance besides tinfoil?
Because the holder probably used yet another passport. Perhaps, even his own. Though not necessarily...
Uh huh! More like they figured they didn't need the passports anymore and just gave them to needy terrorists, so they could complete their tasks.
Remember the car in the garage parking lot of one of the airports, where the car found had a passport in it, along with the flight training books written in Arabic.
I thought it odd to leave the passport behind. Especially since we know the terrorist was going to die in the plane anyway. We also know that there were other cells or terrorists in that area. And other areas, later picked up by the police.
I think the dead pilot left the flight manual in Arabic, and the passport in the car for one of the other terrorists in another cell to pick up and use in their next mission.
This way, you keep reusing the same passports as long as possible. It makes it look like less people are involved, and considering that the person issued the passport is dead, it confuses the issue over 'real names'.
Which is exactly what the Saudi paper is saying. Stolen, no I suspect it was given freely. If this man's passport was stolen while he was in Colorado, how did he get home? A new passport? Dandy? Just what we need anoter multi user passport!
It would be safe to assume that each of these guys had at least three separate identities that they could use, depending on the circumstances.
Plus their own...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.