FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Thank you Registered!
Posted on 06/12/2002 10:52:48 PM PDT by kattracks
Two, as far as the Saudis supporting terorism, it is not the Saudi's per se' it is a Sunni muslim thing. (there are basically 2 types Sunni and Shi'i) The Sunnis are the problem. Iraq probably specifically recruits Saudi symps, Because that is where we need to be to strike Iraq. So to cause us to cast an eye on Saudi Arabia, furthers Husseins interests.
Thank you Registered!
Your are correct and I know better. Sorry.
By using mostly Saudis and some Egyptians as his terrorists, he hoped to turn America against SA which would weaken the US economy, destabilize the arab region and deprive us of a necessary ally in the middle east.
It can't be just a coinsidence that the entire left-wing media (and lots of conservatives) has been smearing and bashing the Saudis fulltime for the past six months.
Thanks for the insight.
Well, then, the ball is in the Saudis' court to frustrate his plan by offering 110% cooperation in the effort to find and neutralize terrorists.
Their agents were working with our guys to track down Padilla and the people he contacted in the mideast.
I have thought for a very long time that the Saudis were being targeted (like the Shah of Iran and Serbians were) in a propaganda campaign to turn popular opinion against them. It has now become completely impossible to find any journalist or publication in this country or Europe defending them.
That's between you and your opthamologist. Not even Bill Clinton would try to define $25K payouts to homicide-bomber families as "cooperation" with the war on terrorism.
That's what I mean. No attempt is made to separate the ruling Saudis, who are very much our allies, and anti-American Saudis in the general public.
We have Berkley, Barbara Lee, pro-Palestian "peace-niks" and Norman Mailer, they have idiots who put on telethons for suicide bombers.
The French have more anti-American sentiment in the media and population (remember the french author who wrote the current best seller saying 9/11 never happened and the Pentagon bombing was a hoax?), but they're still considered an ally.
Do you think that the latter could possibly go around raising money for terrorists without at least implicit approval for the former?
The French have more anti-American sentiment in the media and population (remember the french author who wrote the current best seller saying 9/11 never happened and the Pentagon bombing was a hoax?), but they're still considered an ally.
France is a more or less free Western nation. Their government can't do anything about idiots publishing crackpot books. Saudi Arabia is an oligarchical dictatorship. Nobody there publishes anything that really annoys their ruling class (at least not for very long).
Also, even free Western nations can and do prohibit the raising of funds for the furtherance of known criminal conspiracies. No less should be required of the Saudis.
The King said the telethon was held for the support of Palestian families and not for suicide bombers. Obviously, that's bullshit, but I doubt he can do anything overt to condemn it. If anything, it would be behind the scenes. But there are rich Saudis all over the world who have financed bin Laden and live for the over-throw of the royal family so they can take control. It makes sense to me that this whole relationship is very dangerous for them.
Can you imagine what would happen to the world economy if hostle Islamists were to control that region and its oil?
If you pay attention I think you'll recoginze what is going on. By using the negative aspects of SA culture, selective negative news stories and now this whole new "Bring Back My Babies!!" soap opera, the Saudis are being turned into monsters and pretty soon voices will start demanding that the administration sever ties. You watch.
It's not like you have to dig deep to find those.
Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
Support Free Republic by secure credit card.
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
If that's what they want we should grant their wish. But I don't think he will be ascending he will be going in the opposite direction.
I always thought that using Saudis and Egyptians (America's closest allies among the Arab nations) to attack New York was Osama's way of sending a big message. Notice that when he attacked and murdered the Afghan General Massoud, who was the stronger pillar (along with General Dostum, who at that point was nearly a spent force) of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, Bin Laden sent two Tunisians posing as tele-journalists asking for an on-camera interview.
Osama Bin Laden had Pakis and Africans, Chechens and even Filipinos he could have sent to New York and Washington -- but he sent his principal cadre from just those two countries.
Well, it was American servicemen.
The fact that he attacked American servicemen advertises Osama's beef against "infidels" being present at all in the Arabian Peninsula, which together with Israel/Palestine and the bordering Arab countries constitutes the Hijaz or "Holy Land" as the Arabs see it, and which the Wahhabi extremists want to make into a "no-go" area for people who aren't Moslems themselves. Whereas under previous Saudi princes, foreigners were allowed to be in Jeddah and the Persian Gulf cities, and Riyadh, and only Mecca (and I don't know about Medina) were the "no-go" cities.
Thus the idea of excluding "infidels" from the entire Holy Land and the Arabian Peninsula resurrects a policy last implemented by the Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert, which exclusion outraged Christians and led directly to the Crusades -- hint, hint. But Bin Laden's purpose beyond outbidding his own Saudi government for control of the shrines as part of his drive to replace the House of Saud with a Wahhabi extremist government ("Islamic republic"), is to convene a greater war with the West. So one purpose feeds the other as well as itself. Hence his consistent use, partly from convenience in the Khobar Towers case, of peninsular Arabs and Egyptians to attack Americans in Arabia, in Arabian waters, or in America.
It is conversely in our better interest to pour oil on waters, and cool sprays of water on flaming oil, the better to do all things which erode the imposture and impair the leadership mojo of people like Osama Bin Laden and the wretched hater-theorist, Ayman Zawahiri.
Not Bin Laden. Hussein....(why do you think the War Drums are getting louder with each passing day?)
It looks like the press and even many conservatives have totally bought into the Saudis as Enemy ploy without ever understanding the difference between wacko elements in the general population and our true friends, the ruling family.
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.