.
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
Posted on 04/13/2003 6:25:44 PM PDT by dogbyte12
As the fighting winds down in Iraq, the US has started muscling Syria on a number of issues -- 1) having its own stocks of chemical weapons, 2) giving sanctuary to members of the Saddam Hussein regime, and 3) facilitating or at least not preventing Syrian nationals from going to fight against US forces in Iraq.
This evening CNN has been running live coverage of a firefight in which several snipers or paramilitaries were firing on US Marines near the Palestine Hotel. The CNN reporter on the scene is Rula Amin.
Just after 6:00 PM on the East Coast, Amin was having a back and forth with Wolf Blitzer about those foreign volunteers in the country to fight the US. During that conversation she said that the Saudi volunteers were a bigger deal or there in greater numbers than the Syrians. I don't have down the precise language she used. But the basic point was clear: there are more Saudis there fighting us than Syrians.
(Wolf, buddy, why no follow-up?!?!)
Now, obviously I don't listen to all the coverage out of Iraq, but I don't think I've heard any word of Saudis there fighting against us (though it's hardly surprising) and certainly not that they're the most numerous group in the country. Amin's only one reporter, of course. But her beat is the Middle East; you'd expect reporters on the ground to have the best handle on such an issue; and she said it like she was pretty sure.
This raises some interesting questions. Certainly, we don't want any foreign fighters there shooting at our troops. But to the extent that they're there and we find that they're Syrians, that gives us reason and (figuratively speaking) ammunition for going after Syria. That, of course, is where the administration is looking right now. Finding Saudis there -- from a geopolitical perspective -- is much less helpful. If we were finding them there, it would not surprise me that we wouldn't be making a big deal out of it. There are many folks in the administration -- particularly at the DOD and OVP -- who think the Saudis are at the heart of the problem we have in the region. But for the moment we need the Saudis and they know that. On the other hand, some of their allies outside the administration aren't so constrained. So I'm curious if we'll hear about this from those quarters -- in the standard outlets where we hear from those guys.
-- Josh Marshall
.
That's crap. The left is just trying to ressurect that "Bush is in bed with the Saudis" junk again, since they (the media) lost the war. Everyone involved with the fighting and the cleanup of those paras say that they're mostly Syrians (and palies with Syrian papers). I think they know a helluva more about it than some ditz from CNN. There have been some Saudis, but her statement is beyond wrong, it's a lie.
It seems as though Iraqis will fight for Saddam and sons or for Iraq (their home and country). So, when Saddam and sons are dead or gone, or if they find their country is not going to be occupied by "foreign infidels" but just liberated and then we leave, then they see the rationality to quit fightinng and go home. They know we are not there to take over their country, their land and homes or any of that.
Foreigners, on the other hand are ther for no other reason than to kill Americans and as many of those as possible. They are not there to "defend" anybody or anything. They're only purpose there is to kill Americans...like some sick hunting trip.
The other sick thing about these foreigners is that they do not fight up front. The shoot and kill from some cover with a sniper rifle or an RPG, then drop the thing and run to some other location and stick their hands in their pockets and walk down the street unarmed looking like a peaceful civilian. Our troops need a way to adapt to this kind of behavior, or else they will start shooting anyone and everyone....and who could blame them?
Maybe not. It is impossible to tell what the Saudis are doing over there, but I tend to think they understand which side they're better off with. The point is they're between and rock and a hard place; they can't seem too friendly to us.
The outsiders seem to come from Syria, and since the Egypt's Islamic Brotherhood is the wellspring of these terrorist factions, I would expect to see them represented as well.I don't doubt some are Saudis, but I don't think the government is sponsering them. There is a racial or cultural (Sunni vs. Shiite) aspect to this war as much as any strictly religious or political one. It will be interesting to watch things shake out.
And you know this because...?
15 of 19 on 9-11 ring a bell to anybody else?
Not to mention most of Gito's population hailing from the wretched "kingdom"
The people actually involved in dealing with those scum say the vast majority of them are Syrians and others, with Saudis way down on the list. I don't like the Saudis either, but I'm not going to agree with some CNN crap that flies in the face of established facts just so I can curse them. I can do that without bolstering CNN's agenda. Just like that pro-terrorist muslim spinster Suleyman Ahmed (you probably know him as 'Stephen Schwartz'), CNN only engages in Saudi-bashing when it serves some other purpose. In the recent past that purpose has been to try and generate anger at the Republican Administration. With Suleyman Ahmed it's been to cause problems for the Saudis because they quit supporting the other terrorists that he supports. All available information, and there has been plenty, clearly disproves CNN's claim to be completely false. That is the basis of my opinion that her statement is beyond wrong, and is a lie.
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.