Join 3,502 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


comme ce, comme ca
November 27, 2002 9:29 AM   Subscribe

Direct links to Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. And yet we aim for War with Iraq.
posted by The Jesse Helms (37 comments total)

 
Did any one else read that as being a direct link to Al Qaeda's homepage? To think all the free world had to do was read the official blog...
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:39 AM on November 27, 2002


You convinced me. Let's bomb Saudi Arabia while we wait for inspections to finish.
posted by chris24 at 9:41 AM on November 27, 2002


That's it. I'm returing my copy of Disney's Aladdin.
posted by Ron at 9:58 AM on November 27, 2002


You must absolutely suck at Monopoly, The Jesse Helms.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:00 AM on November 27, 2002


One interesting conspiracy theory:

If the U.S. has control of (or access to) Iraq's oil, then it would no longer be dependant upon Saudi oil. Once this dependence is lost, who knows what path U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia might take.
posted by jsonic at 10:04 AM on November 27, 2002


Al Qaida is flush with cash. Why is it there's always such illusory satisfaction to be gained when shutting the proverbial barn door after the terrorists have gone?
posted by BentPenguin at 10:25 AM on November 27, 2002


No?
posted by four panels at 10:35 AM on November 27, 2002


17 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia, we have mountains of evidence linking the Saudia Arabia to terrorist organizations, Saudia Arabia commits human rights violations of the sort of we vehmently condemn anywhere else, yet we bomb Afghanistan and go to war with Iraq.

Dear George Bush, fuck you, crazy ape man.
posted by xmutex at 10:39 AM on November 27, 2002


And if you need further evidence of Sadui cooperation with terrorism, try this this

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_5.html
posted by Postroad at 10:43 AM on November 27, 2002


This terrorism, it vibrates?
posted by xmutex at 10:46 AM on November 27, 2002


"Daddy, where were you when the US started taking over the world?"

"Now, little one, we all know that US money controlled the world long before the US controlled most of the land mass."

"I know, I know. But, where were you when the US began picking off Middle Eastern countries?"

"Well, back in '03, a lot of us were hoping that maybe Iraq really did have WMD and that once they were disarmed, that would be the end of it. We didn't realize that the US hegemony was just looking for an easy enemy with lots of resources to grab. Although the creation of the 'country' of Kuwait and Iraq's egged-on invasion of it did create a spectacular war, it didn't really result in lasting US control in the region. That's why they trumped up charges against Saddam and took over Iraq. Of course, nobody foresaw that the US would proceed to take Iran by force, or Syria..."
posted by timbley at 10:46 AM on November 27, 2002


"Daddy, where were you when the US started taking over the world?"

Well, it was long before I was born, but the amazing part is that the majority of the people in the world don't know that we've already done it. You see, we just let them have their own little governments and we don't take territorial control of those places in our sphere of influence and they continue to trust in the myth that they are actually independent entities. We even let them believe that we care what they think. Its funny in its own sad
way.
posted by cmdnc0 at 11:11 AM on November 27, 2002


"Daddy, where were you when the US started taking over the world?"

"I was porking Mummy's sister, little one."
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:16 AM on November 27, 2002


I would venture most, if not all, of you never bothered to pick up a book...it is called history, try it. it might actually get you upset and someone other then yourselves. TJH, i surprised you have constructed such a crappy "link".

I would suggest a basic text, any college one will do, on the middle east. But i highly recommend Roberts Baers' 'See No Evil'. Then come whining back to this thread which, by that time, will either be deleted or closed for archival purposes.
posted by clavdivs at 11:21 AM on November 27, 2002


clavdivs

you have a pretty crass -- although interesting -- way to shit on people

Baer's self-serving, self-promoting failed sppok arrogance would hardly be my first choice, but well, for those still interested:

Bombing Saddam is ignorance

http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,661170,00.html
posted by matteo at 11:33 AM on November 27, 2002


Do you think you could be a little more condescending in your next post, Clavdivs? The last one wasn't insulting enough.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:36 AM on November 27, 2002


Will you be following suit then, clavdivs? I imagine if you think these folks are so off base then you could use quite a brush up yourself before you start flinging the flames! Yeah, some of their comments are a bit misinformed in regards to the middle eastern end but not so much on the history of American imperialism and attempts to influence the region. I would suggest people also read the statistics about oil producing nations before making claims that we will be under less influence of Saudi oil, Iraq produces less oil then Venezuela even and we wouldn't try to overthrow... oh, wait, I forgot...
posted by Pollomacho at 11:39 AM on November 27, 2002


The Saudis are ripe for the plucking.
posted by rushmc at 12:11 PM on November 27, 2002


...just like mummy's sister, apparently.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:15 PM on November 27, 2002


Could the answer be simply put, that sure, we'd like to clear out the slime balls from the Saudi government, but the fact is the King is barely in power already and only likes us in that way you like that creepy uncle that always smells funny and wants a hug at the reunion as it is and if we go in knocking off some of his nephews and cousins he will either get pissed at us and we lose what little diplomatic toe hold we do have in Arabia (and the region for that matter) or he gets over thrown and ditto, plus its easier to knock off Saddam and steal his oil, but that's a different story?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:27 PM on November 27, 2002


clavdivs has posted no links 1830 comments to MetaFilter

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
posted by four panels at 12:34 PM on November 27, 2002


four panels, that's just not right (leave the personal attacks out, please), nor is it fair.

I deliberately avoid posting to the front page, as do many, because there's entirely too much crap there already. You want a piece of me, too? Going after clav because he does not post a link to the latest piece of mindless flash crap or tedious political screed (for reasons of his own) is both pointless and offensive. Quit it.

clavdivs was arrogant above, sure, but he's freaking right. More than a few people here would benefit from a little study of history.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:39 PM on November 27, 2002


Recent discussion about the Saudis.
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on November 27, 2002


[cry havoc, and let slip the pancakes of war]
posted by blue_beetle at 12:54 PM on November 27, 2002


four panels's Profile
member since: October 2, 2002
four panels has posted 10 links and 143 comments to MetaFilter and no threads and 2 comments to MetaTalk

If all 16,000 people here posted links at this rate, there would be about 2,500 links posted per day. Commendable restraint from (most) mefites.
posted by Bletch at 12:54 PM on November 27, 2002


Take it to the MeTA, please! I don't recall anything to do with people's posting records in the articles, attack content of statements not the one's stating them and get on with it! Thank you, I'm done, please you were saying...
posted by Pollomacho at 1:02 PM on November 27, 2002


Correction bb, it's: "Let flip the pancakes of war."
posted by dchase at 1:17 PM on November 27, 2002


your frikkin right i was condescending, i would call it down right, pit faced table pounding. (and bad grammar to boot)

"shit on people " at least i don't have a potty mouth. Baer is not self-serving and his "arrogance" is not apparent in his book. He actually seems like a descent guy, have you read it? If you have, then you will see what he is aiming at. So here's test Matteo, What is Baers premise regarding whom he believes is the most potent mover behind Islamic terrorism and starting when. Also, what was Baers observations concerning the schism with-in Russian nationalists of the 1990's. In your Guardian link, Baer states that he is appalled at the level of american ignorance...well i mirror that sentiment in this thread. Yeah, the company is Real displeased with his book, even though he was acquainted with Tenant. (I believe they went to GeorgeTown together) How is his work "failed ignorance" he observes that when a rocket propelled grenade slammed into the U.S. Embassy in 95', Clinton did not do anything. Who fails whom?

"the history of American imperialism"
don't rant.
Why don't you look into the history of BP oil and tell who is, cuse me, was imperialistic. Wanna talk about Arafat and France. How about German intelligence failures and the appeasement to middle eastern concerns. Hamburg connection?.

I would suggest people also read the statistics about oil producing nations before making claims that we will be under less influence of Saudi oil


what about that saudi arabia is keeper to the two most important religious structures in the Islamic world.(refurbished by Bin Laden group) More to the Saudis then oil. You want the 'fundies' to get ahold of them...and they tried once already (at least once) remember that. No, I'll be made to sound like appeaser to the Saudis'. See, it ain't that simple folks. Why would the Saudis put two hits out on OBL then, acting as one (which is the crux of the complex Saudi question), fund terrorists. I have no doubt some Saudis finance(d) Al qaedi. al quadi is not the real question is it. Anyone care to venture...Clavdivs would say "It's about the new Whitesnake album" but not here, not now. Baers right, what about what happens to Iraq after we invade. But the question is if we invade. Well, you think Geo and Co. are gonna tell you or the press. heck no.

See, the world is complex but people are also because there is no world without people...er ya. My point... An example: even though I get angry at stavs, doesn't mean i attack him with full force. He has a right, and he has not spoken out against american people. I would venture he cares about a few of us. But i *heart* the guy because he has a heart.

for instance, stavs likes Henry Miller, but i don't know to what degree he likes him. (don't mind do ya stavs) Me, can't stand very much of him but value some of his writings.

but how do we feel about Miller the man. ( He says "Fuck" with great verve in 'Reds' ((he was great eh?) But i don't care for Miller as a man. He kinda a pig when women are concerned (in his private life) and i have a first person source on this. So, i must hate Miller now after i "know" what he is like?

but the real question is: can I rely on the source?
which brings us back to Miller the writer...the evidence.

and it goes around again, trying to find truth....

in which there is a saying in the lobby of CIA HQ.
something about it setting you free.

I say, believe in what you can. try not to believe in what you will.
posted by clavdivs at 1:37 PM on November 27, 2002


Offtopic, but why not :

clav, although I often find myself hating America as a nation, as personified by its government, and am vocal about that anger, I do care deeply for many Americans, and I have nothing at all against its people. So you're right there, definitely. The day after September 11, I was saying (while some were peddling the 'they deserved it' line already) that it was important, for me at least, to differentiate between the nation and the people in it.

As far as Miller goes, although he was indeed a pretty crappy example of a human being in many ways, he also said some things, using some language, that inspired me as a young man, and to some extent still do, older and ostensibly wiser though I am. Part of my continued interest in him is that very tension in my feelings between disliking the shithead that was the man, and respecting and caring for the seraphic (both fallen and not) ideas and words.

If I grasp what you're trying to say (about me, at least), it is precisely in that tension between poles that my feelings for America and her people also lie. Even if it's not what you meant, it's true in a metaphorical way, and thank you for the insight.

[apologies for dragging this thread even further off kilter, if I have done so]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:08 PM on November 27, 2002


Wait, you told ME not to rant, and here I was the one trying to steer folks away from the personal attacks?

These problems go back far beyond BP oil, heard of the crusades? Roman Empire? Alexander of Macedon? We are the westerners du jour in the area we may not have been the one pushing the Bedouins around 100 years ago (doesn't mean we weren't setting ourselves up for trouble in the Philippines back then though) but we are the big guy now. Our imperial interests are what pisses them off, they see those working with us as working for "the man" just the same as the British, the Germans, the Crusaders, the Romans or Greeks or whatever conquering force happens to be pushing them around.

I haven't read Baer, no, but I've read plenty of other stuff. Just a suggestion, maybe relying on only a few sources of information as THE only way to view something is what has gotten you so flamed in response. I would like to hear more about Mr. Baer's theories, please elaborate in a clear form. Anyway, for the time being I'll pose this argument: Why would the Saudis put two hits out on OBL then, acting as one (which is the crux of the complex Saudi question), fund terrorists maybe when you say "the Saudis" you are not talking about a very solidified group? Maybe one member of the Saud family feels one way about Ossama, while others feel another?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:10 PM on November 27, 2002


Maybe Ossama is a jerk and they want some other guy calling the shots?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:20 PM on November 27, 2002


I'm going to go back to the history bit... for those who want the straight dope on Middle Eastern history, I'd recommend the following: David Fromkin's "Peace to End All Peace" and T. E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" (really). I read these while serving as a Marine in Gulf War v1.0 and continue to look back on them as things heat up again.

As for the Saudis guarding Mecca and Medina -- they stole it from the Hashemites in the 1920s.
posted by minnesotaj at 2:47 PM on November 27, 2002


Good grief. I can't even get up the energy for snark.

Obviously nobody's suggesting we should march on Riyadh -- at least, people like The Jesse are probably trying to be sarcastic rather than make that precise point. But how anyone could even suggest that the presence of disgruntled Saudis with money, who might give it to al Qaeda, is then a greater threat to the US than the presence of loyal Iraqis with nuclear weapons (hypothetically, of course), who might give nuclear weapons to al Qaeda (or probably some other group, or at least an affiliate in the International Islamic Front)? I mean, what?

And it's 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, not that it's an important distinction. Why was that? Clearly OBL was recruiting Saudis for a reason, or probably a half-dozen reasons. As a military threat Saudi Arabia is a nullity. (This goes back to why prior administrations hoped that Iraq's strength would be stabilizing.) As a military ally (and allies do not have to be "friends"; one may recall Uncle Joe), Saudi Arabia is in the near term essential (helping us against al Qaeda in Yemen, for example).

And while I'm not given to conspiracy theories, elements of strategy do interest me -- and it seems clear that the administration is likely more than pleased that the payments issue with Prince Bandar's wife (quite substanceless in most regards) has come to light precisely now. The Saudi media is incensed, and seems to have figured out that this embarrassment makes it that much more difficult for the Saudi government to refuse assistance -- for example, in any action necessary against Iraq. But most likely this was timed for the issue of the NSC Task Force pressing for greater crackdowns on the real financiers. There's much talk of Crown Prince Abdullah being unwilling to risk insurrection, but I think that's a smokescreen -- this is a royal family with a lot of disenfranchised, spoiled princes, and the greater risk for Abdullah is a coup from within.

To the extent that Abdullah is far from the ideal of whom the US would like in the post of ruler, any undermining of his position is helpful to US strategy. So in the end, don't think that we're not moving "against" Saudi Arabia: they simply require a different set of tools and strategies.
posted by dhartung at 2:49 PM on November 27, 2002


god don't you guys know the rules? sequels are much easier to make than new pictures, it's called brand-building, i mean look at the trailer for charlie's angels 2 forgod'ssakes
posted by maura at 2:49 PM on November 27, 2002


i spent 15 minutes in response and lost it all to dial-up cut off. excuses. so heres the short version.

Yes stav, that is what i was trying to convey, that we can see beyond politics and I'm happy we see eye-to eye to some degree on Miller. His work is important.

I would like to hear more about Mr. Baer's theories, please elaborate in a clear form.

buy the book or check it out from the library. I made myself clear enough. Also, it is not his theories, they are his experiences and observations concerning the cold war and beyond. Of course there are other sources to use and I have stated them in other threads. Minnesotaj has two good books to start with.
ya, heard of the romans, why don't we just go back to the assassination of David and go on from there...kidding.

which is the crux of the complex Saudi question),

the crux is what you said: you are not talking about a very solidified group

they simply require a different set of tools and strategies

bingo IMO. cogent and correct as always.
posted by clavdivs at 4:33 PM on November 27, 2002


"I was porking Mummy's sister, little one."

Dad, go home--you're drunk.

What a bunch of cranks today--oh, wait, it's Thanksgiving, that time we visit the relatives and shout at them--sort of like Tony Randall on a Tonight Show from Johnny's day, describing Freudian slips--
"It's when you turn around to the person next to you on Thanksgiving, intending to say, 'Could you pass the mashed potatoes, please...'
--and instead you scream, 'YOU BITCH! You ruined my life!' "
posted by y2karl at 5:06 PM on November 27, 2002


Happy Thanksgiving Karl and Dan and the rest of you cheeky ones.
posted by clavdivs at 7:11 AM on November 28, 2002


« Older Return of the vast right-wing conspiracy? ...  |  A warning shot in the dark: F... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments