Posted on 07/27/2002 10:11:04 PM PDT by prophetic
Britons left in jail amid fears that Saudi Arabia could fall to al-Qaeda
Martin Bright, Nick Pelham and Paul Harris Sunday July 28, 2002 The Observer
Saudi Arabia is teetering on the brink of collapse, fuelling Foreign Office fears of an extremist takeover of one of the West's key allies in the war on terror.
Anti-government demonstrations have swept the desert kingdom in the past months in protest at the pro-American stance of the de facto ruler, Prince Abdullah.
At the same time, Whitehall officials are concerned that Abdullah could face a palace coup from elements within the royal family sympathetic to al-Qaeda.
Saudi sources said the Pentagon had recently sponsored a secret conference to look at options if the royal family fell.
Demonstrations across the kingdom broke out in March, triggered by a fire in a girls' school in which 14 pupils died after the religious police stopped them escaping.
Unrest in the east of the country rapidly escalated into nationwide protests against the royal family that were brutally suppressed by the police. The Observer has obtained secret video footage of the protests smuggled out of the country last week that shows hundreds of Saudis, including women, demonstrating in support of the Palestinians and opposition to the regime.
The Foreign Office believes that the failure of Abdullah's recent Middle East peace plan could have terminally undermined his position.
The Crown Prince's main rival, Prince Sultan, the Defence Minister, has been vocal in his opposition to Abdullah's pro- Western policy. His brother Prince Naif, head of the Interior Ministry, has led a crackdown on the Saudi media in the wake of the demonstrations to stop any word of them leaking out.
Abdullah has even sent his own representative to Washington to counter the influence of the ambassador, Prince Bandar, a son of Prince Sultan.
Anti-Abdullah elements within the Saudi government are also thought to have colluded in a wave of bomb attacks on Western targets by Islamic terrorists.
The authorities have blamed the attacks on an alleged 'turf war' between Westerners involved in the bootleg alcohol trade and have jailed five Britons, a Canadian and a Belgian for the bombings. But British intelligence sources have confirmed that the attacks were carried out by Islamists linked to al-Qaeda.
Earlier this year, the accused men were handed sentences ranging from execution to long prison terms. But lawyers acting for the Britons have told The Observer that they could soon be free.
The tensions between the royal factions will intensify with the death of King Fahd. The condition of the king, in hospital in Switzerland, is 'unstable', doctors said.
British-based Saudi dissident Dr Saad al-Fagih said: 'There is now an undeclared war between the factions in the Saudi royal family.'
Very possible! Why should we care about the security of the Saudi Family? They started all of this in the first place.
Sometimes you have to read between a line or two and correlate what you are reading with known facts. Oh and you might recall that OBL has declared jihad on all infidels both in the ME and abroad but in the ME its a major "abomination", "heresy", etc.
BTW unless you're with 'ol OBL you're an infidel (not a good thing). Cheerio!
Allowing the tyrannical, brutal and despotic organization that we're at war with to take over a nation does not further anyone's "rights".
No. Each gets a camel and a piece of beef jerky. Exile them to the desert from whence they came. They won't be flying commercial aircraft into office buildings for a long time.
Let us all, every one of us, pray that this happens, as soon as possible. This would give us the final pretext to assume control of the Arabian oil fields, and restore stability to the international oil markets.
You can stick your crayons back in the orifice from which you got'em. In two tries, you haven't referenced anything regarding "Britons left in jails".
The text of an article should support any charge made in the headline, not just present a scenario where the charge is possible. The Guardian could re-title it 100 things that are possible, all of which would be just as supported as this one. If you can't see that, crayons are just about right for you.
Coincidentally, the identical technique used by the Muslim Mass Murderers:
There are too many of us, so you might as well give up now.
How much more mayhem and murder will it take to make that clear?
Personally my response is the one finger salute and "bring it on", mohamid.
Personally, I see more advantage in divide and conquer.
Medina is central to all Muslims, it's woven into their faith and cannot be seperated. Imo, turning it into a wasteland is counterproductive.
It's the difference between catching one biker outside and whopping his butt and walking into the crowded clubhouse making threats.
This is nothing but horsecrap. Prince Sultan is the most Pro-American member of the royal family. Crown Prince Abdullah became heir-apparent in a sort of palace coup against Prince Sultan and his pro-west views years ago.
Mike
That would actually be a good development. No more excuses for bush to "bond" with these genocidal slavers - he'd have to take them out. Or he would need his more-or-less-installed police state to have any hope for another term.
I hope I'm not revealing any Top Secrets.
Condtition Number 1 - Muslim Extremists are actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction.
Condition Number 2 - 3,000 Americans were killed on US soil by a large scale suicidal attack from Muslim Extremists.
The US is now justified and required to use every means at its disposal to prevent Muslim Extremist from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It is no longer about them any more. They lost their rights when they cheared the WTC attack. This is now war. Its about us, our children and our childrens children. We cannot allow a state governed by a suicidal religion or a terrorist group from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Granted, controlling Saudi Arabia does not give one weapons of mass destruction, but allowing the sphere of influence (economic and geographical) of the muslim extremists to continue to grow, is in effect assisitng them with their desire to eventually acquire WMD. We now know that unlike the soviets, they wont hesitate to us them. Thus, first strike is in play.
Last week, an earth-sciences-oriented website had a number of job postings on their employment BB for positions with Saudi Aramco -- a whole string of them. I wonder whether this represents normal turnover, or whether the expats are leaving.
If this Guardian story is right, accepting one of those positions could turn into 55 Days at Peking.
I'm puzzled as much as our poster above, by who is supposed to be on whose side in all of the above. Prince Bandar, who is aligned with Prince Sultan in the Guardian story, was Saudi ambassador to the US when King Fahd was in good health, and has been a bon vivant and ex-fighter pilot who was supposedly very pro-American.
Abdullah was supposed to be the Arab Philip II, the piously religious national leader who was influenced by his clerics.
I agree with you that no way can we let these people acquire WMD -- they will use them, immediately and ruthlessly.
However, it isn't absolutely necessary, in such a showdown, that the US carry the load alone. There is someone in the area who will be a whole hell of a lot twitchier about Osama and the Saudis getting the Bomb than even we are. And they won't hesitate to strike. They'll turn the whole Arabian Peninsula into a parking lot if they have to -- because they have nowhere to go, and they're all through with getting killed because they were taught that we should all be nice to one another and shouldn't defend ourselves proactively.
Kinda like the joke floating around the 'Net......."'Cause we ain't played 'cowboys and Moslems' yet."
No, [being about people's rights] depends on whether the régime is about people's rights. Al Qaeda doesn’t even give it lip service.
We're at war with al-Qaeda, and if it governs a nation, we're functionally at war with that nation, if not legally.
We were not at war with the people behind the Cuban or Iranian revolutions. And because SA is still technically an alley, if an al-Qaeda took over we simply wouldn't recognize it, would label it an aggressive act and our next operation would be there, not Iraq.
Is that fair? International relations have never been ruled by fairness. International laws are weak (and until they are as sophisticated as our own Constitution's recognition of individual rights, separation of power and representative democracy, they should be.) So absent laws, force rules. Fortunately for the world, the dominant force is by far the most benevolent in history.
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.