the broken glass beneath your feet

May 17, 2005 12:36 PM

15 of 19 were Saudis. And now, continuing a trend from the Kingdom, most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are known to be Saudi Arabian.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket (42 comments total)

Why do Saudi's hate life so much?

I'd love to see Bush explain how Saudi Arabia got a free pass during the 9/11 aftermath. It couldn't have something to do with around a $1 trillion of Saudi money in the US economy could it?
posted by fenriq at 12:39 PM on May 17, 2005

Wait, so you're saying the Republican administration takes a strong practially favorable view towards anyone who's invested large amounts of tangible capital in our system?

noooooooooooo.... neverrrrrrrrrr...... I don't believe it.
posted by nervousfritz at 12:45 PM on May 17, 2005

He found 154 Arabs killed over the previous six months in Iraq, 61 percent of them from Saudi Arabia, with Syrians, Iraqis and Kuwaitis together accounting for another 25 percent.

It's amazing that the Saudi side of this whole mess has been virtually ignored by the press. Foreign fighters, indeed. I never knew they were coming from SA.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:48 PM on May 17, 2005

also see Robert Baer's book: "What the fuck is the matter with Saudi Arabia?"
posted by matteo at 12:50 PM on May 17, 2005

If the press didn't ignore Saudi Arabia, the lie would be too obvious. The Iraq war is about terrorism? No, then we'd be fighting SA. How about freedom? Well, no, the Saudis aren't exactly a beacon of freedom and democracy and they are our "friends" in the region. Let's see... what could it be about Saudi Arabia that makes them our friends?
posted by callmejay at 12:55 PM on May 17, 2005

posted by billysumday at 12:57 PM on May 17, 2005

I thought the hijackers used fake identities.
posted by airguitar at 12:57 PM on May 17, 2005

Religion is bad. I don't like it. No Sir! I don't like it.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:02 PM on May 17, 2005

And we also just relaxed the visa rules for the Saudis--a gigantic mistake. (We know the prince is the rough top in that relationship)
posted by amberglow at 1:03 PM on May 17, 2005

rough top
Is it me, or does that sound like gay slang
"I met this fantabulosa crimper who liked to be the rough top".
posted by seanyboy at 1:12 PM on May 17, 2005

seanyboy, it IS gay slang.
posted by fenriq at 1:12 PM on May 17, 2005

So now, of course, the question is what non-sexy meaning did seanyboy think amberglow was getting at.
posted by nobody at 1:16 PM on May 17, 2005

Rich guys get away with murder....

The Saudi's may not be OJ, but their importance to the American economy means they can squeeze us all they want and we, our president & our press will smile and thank them for it.
posted by dontrememberthis at 1:20 PM on May 17, 2005

; >
posted by amberglow at 1:35 PM on May 17, 2005

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. With hog entrails.

It's the only way to be sure.
posted by alumshubby at 1:42 PM on May 17, 2005

Lots of liberal "doves" certainly are hawkish on Saudi Arabia. Is it because they really want to attack Saudi Arabia or are they just playing devil's advocate to Bush: "Oh, if you're gonna attack Iraq, why not Syria?, Iran?, North Korea? Saudi Arabia?"

While S.A. is need of reforms, here are a couple of reasons why we shouldn't attack them:

a) it's the holy land for 2 billion people. If you think you know what jihad is now, wait till we drop bunker busters on Mecca and Medina.

b) they have a lot of oil, and a shortage of their oil would severely damage our economy (it would damage their economy even more, but that's beside the point).

The strategy, then, is to change SA's neighbors and then pressure them to change (See: Iraq War). Yes, you can point to all the failures of the Iraq war, and I'm not an advocate for it, but Iraq in 2010 will be probably be a better place than in 2000.

The war was never about WMDs, that was the excuse to sell it to the masses. What it is about is gaining a foothold in the middle east to promote democracy and free trade, neither of which existed under Sadaam.

And if they plan fails, Iraq is really not that important of a place anyways. Yeah, it's home to 20 million people, but those kinds of stats never interest the politicians (especially when they don't have to be accountable to that population).

So if we screw up Iraq, it's a big mess but pretty much contained to the middle east, meaning Americans can comfortably watch the last episode of the Bachelor each year, whereas effing up Saudi Arabia would pretty much eff up the whole world.

Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. Our policy on the middle east.
posted by b_thinky at 2:07 PM on May 17, 2005

The Economic Hitman guy was on WPFW this morning helping Amy Goodman to hawk for their pledge drive. He said that he helped engineer Saudi Arabia's situation; basically they give us stably priced oil, and we give them a blank check to do WHAT EVER THE FUCK ELSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. Also Bechtel, Halliburton, etc get the profits.
posted by sandking at 2:21 PM on May 17, 2005

b_thinky, since you seem to have an "in" to Bush's inner circle, could you ask him to stop lying about why we went to war? Thanksverymuch.

And what do you mean "if we screw up Iraq"? You don't think its already a colossal clusterfuck? Have you been paying attention?
posted by fenriq at 2:48 PM on May 17, 2005

The House of Cards Saud is barely in charge and wouldn't be there at all if not for the US need for oil. Odd as it may seem, the Toyota Prius is the beginning of their end. Unless we manage to legislate it out of existence.
posted by tommasz at 3:06 PM on May 17, 2005

most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are known to be Saudi Arabian

Does this mean, then, we're going to go to war against Uruguay?
posted by MikeKD at 3:26 PM on May 17, 2005

the Toyota Prius is the beginning of their end. Unless we manage to legislate it out of existence

The demand for oil continues to rise, and would, even if we all drove Priuses. A Prius gets good gas milage, but it still takes fossil fuel to run and construct any car on the market.

I think the Kingdom is pretty vulnerable on many fronts.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:48 PM on May 17, 2005

That John Perkins interview isn't new, but it's amazing. Thanks, sandking. I gotta check out that book.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:50 PM on May 17, 2005

b_thinky:
While S.A. is need of reforms, here are a couple of reasons why we shouldn't attack them: ...
b) they have a lot of oil, and a shortage of their oil would severely damage our economy.

Gives a whole new meaning to No Blood for Oil, doesn't it?
posted by fleacircus at 3:50 PM on May 17, 2005

Gives a whole new meaning to No Blood for Oil, doesn't it?

Do you disagree that attacking a country that controls the lifeblood of the American economy would be a bad idea? I hope that nobody on MeFi would want to start Great Depression II just to prove a point.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:07 PM on May 17, 2005

I've always found an overwhelming wave of irony in the fact that all the Saudi's I've ever met in Southern California were the uber-rich, vaguely royal elites. And they've always been the most decadent, materialistic assholes, with the most blatant trophy wives I've ever seen, and a vile, spoiled daughter from their first marriage that makes Paris Hilton look like a Mormon missionary.

And that lifestyle is provided by the fact that some distant relatives hold a controlling interest in an oil-rich country, which they secure and maintain by allying themselves with Wahabists.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:10 PM on May 17, 2005

Yes, I am a bigoted asshole sometimes, thank you for asking.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2005

I've always found an overwhelming wave of irony in the fact that all the Saudi's I've ever met in Southern California were the uber-rich, vaguely royal elites. And they've always been the most decadent, materialistic assholes, with the most blatant trophy wives I've ever seen, and a vile, spoiled daughter from their first marriage that makes Paris Hilton look like a Mormon missionary.

And that lifestyle is provided by the fact that some distant relatives hold a controlling interest in an oil-rich country, which they secure and maintain by allying themselves with Wahabists.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 4:10 PM PST on May 17 [!]

That's how you do it. Have a small group loot the government, while the majority is blinded by religion.

Bush looks to the best for tips.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 4:35 PM on May 17, 2005

The title of this is highly misleading. The article says that of the foreign suicide bombers many were Saudi Arabian. The title of this article implies that most of all of the suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudi. It's a convenient fallacy.


Juan Cole states

The Washington Post argues that a disproportionate number of suicide bombings in Iraq is carried out by foreign jihadis, and that Saudis constitute 50 percent or more of the bombers. But if you look more closely, the article admits that there are only about 1,000 foreign jihadis fighting in Iraq. I'd figure the number of Iraqi guerrillas at 25,000 hardcore, and nearly twice that if we count weekend warriors, so this group is a relatively minor part of the whole.

and later points out why this article may have appeared:

The attraction of the "foreigners thesis" for Washington is obvious. It allows the Bush administration to sidestep the implication that a substantial proportion of the Iraqi public violently rejects the US presence.

posted by sien at 4:42 PM on May 17, 2005

Do you disagree that attacking a country that controls the lifeblood of the American economy would be a bad idea? I hope that nobody on MeFi would want to start Great Depression II just to prove a point.

To hell with that, nerd! I'll invade any number of oil-rich countries that mess with me, without any clear diplomatic strategy whatsoever, ha! I didn't go to war for oil, and all be damned if I not go to war because of oil, either. Don't you fuckin' tar me with that brush. Yeah yeah, Depression, boo-hoo; I call it an Opp-or-tun-tion. It'll be hard work, but I think in the end we'll look back, we'll see all that suffering by the innocent people, and think ... man that was so totally worth it. Let freedom's reign ring!
posted by fleacircus at 4:48 PM on May 17, 2005 [1 favorite]

what sien and Cole said.
posted by amberglow at 4:57 PM on May 17, 2005

fleacircus for President!

The USA can and will do whatever it wants, but only if we the people elect fleacircus for President in 2008!

Plus, if you act now, $300 for every man, woman and child! Buy yourself a foot massager!

The democrats think we need to be "reasonable" and "thoughtful." They want to take your foot-massager away.

fleacircus for President in 2008! Because when the democrats talk, it looks like a cunt moving.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 5:20 PM on May 17, 2005

moving to go where?
posted by matteo at 5:32 PM on May 17, 2005

all we have to do is stop using their damn oil! (i know, i know, more greenhouse gases, but hey, its better then anything at the moment)
posted by Mach5 at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2005

fenriq: sorry, I've never met Bush. I wouldn't want to go to Iraq now, but in 2010 or so it will probably be a nice place to go and do business. That's the bet that Bush (and us) are making anyways. You can go on praying for the worst so you can say "I told you so" if you want though.
posted by b_thinky at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2005

"Indeed, since 11th September, the Islamists and conservatives in the royal family have been able to use anti-US feeling to strengthen their power base. The anti-Saudi media campaign in the west, coupled with resentment at US support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinian intifada, meant that fewer ordinary Saudis supported calls for reform and democracy. Outsiders pushing for regime change have made life harder for the assortment of reformers-Islamic and secular-campaigning for progress within Saudi Arabia for most of the 1990s. "

http ://www.johnrbradley.com/art_10.html
posted by meddeviceengineer at 6:49 PM on May 17, 2005

I don't get why people act like this is some kind of surprise.
posted by nightchrome at 7:13 PM on May 17, 2005

And if they plan fails, Iraq is really not that important of a place anyways. Yeah, it's home to 20 million people, but those kinds of stats never interest the politicians

Excuse me, but what? Iraq is home to ten percent of the planet's oil, second only to Saudi Arabia. The country was formed for the distinct purpose of managing the resources it holds, not to mention its geopolitical position in the Middle East in regard to both military positioning and trans-national infrastructure. With the rising power of Islamic fundamentalist states in the post-Soviet era the country albeit under oppressive dictatorship remained a linchpin in secular anti-Islamic power in the Arab world. The manufactured significance of Iraq as a country is a testament to the nightmare that could unravel in the Middle East should we "screw up" there. To say "Iraq is really not that important of a place" and its stats "never interest the politicians" is not merely wrong; it would in fact be a challenge to actively make such a statement more incorrect.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:34 PM on May 17, 2005

Flypaper.

Having peninsular jihadis exterminate themselves in Iraq helps the position of the House of Saud. And of the friends of the House of Saud.

(I've never quite gotten why people think that "15 of 19" is some sort of argument against the Riyadh regime. They certainly wouldn't have gone around fucking things up; their asses depend on our goodwill.)

XQ, I think b_thinky is explicating a policy. You should direct your comments at the authors of said policy, not the messenger.
posted by dhartung at 9:27 PM on May 17, 2005

That's the bet that Bush (and us) are making anyways.

Do you even begin to comprehend the shear enormity of the hubris required to make a statement like this?
posted by dopeypanda at 11:11 PM on May 17, 2005

I don't agree with Cole that just because the Saudi's make up less fighters they are not the majority of suicide bombers. I think it comes down to motivation. The Iraqi insurgents are fighting to get the US army out of Iraq (for various reasons, not all of them for the goal of Iraqi self determination) while the Saudi and foreign fighers seem to be there to kill infidels (US soldiers) in glorious jihad, and if that doesn't work try and kill as many infidel supporting Shi'a Muslims, which seems to be happening now.

The other reason why I don't think that so many are Iraqi is the lack of suicide bombing under Saddam's reign. If so many Iraqis are willing to kill themselves under US rule why not under Saddam?
posted by PenDevil at 12:45 AM on May 18, 2005

XQ, how much of our oil do we get from Iraq today? Not much. So considering present circumstances, its really not that much of a risk. And in the end, we will get the oil. Don't worry.
posted by b_thinky at 6:40 AM on May 18, 2005

That's the bet that Bush (and us) are making anyways. You can go on praying for the worst

OK, first off keep that "us" crap to yourself 'cause I don't want any of it.
I don't bet on ANYTHING that Bush and the "us" wrong, wrong, wrong, losers bet on.
Secondly, who is praying for anything?
And you're telling me that things can get worse than they are now in Iraq?
If so, you gotta quit watching FOX "News" and get a fresh breath of reality once in a while.
Didja' hear the Army desperately needs a few more "us" type folks right now?
Get your spot before all the good ones get taken!
Then we'll really hear some praying and easy prognisticating about how things will be better in 10 years.
posted by nofundy at 10:34 AM on May 18, 2005