May 30, 2005
Do I Understand This Correctly?
I don't know that I want to comment too extensively on the arrests of Rafiq Abdus Sabir and Tarik Shah on charges arrested on charges of conspiring to aid terrorists. I'd like to wait for a little more information to come out before forming an opinion.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
But I am concerned about one paragraph I read in this article.
As recently as May 20, during a meeting at a New York City apartment, Sabir indicated he would travel shortly to Saudi Arabia to treat the wounds of jihadists at a Saudi military base, prosecutors said. Travel records showed he was scheduled to leave Thursday.
Now, was the whole "jihadists at a Saidi military base" just a ruse by the FBI to reel these guys in? Or are we being told, ever so obliquely, that the Saudis are providing medical care for wounded jihadis on their military bases? I guess what I'm really asking is if this should be seen as evidence of the Saudis playing both sides of the street.
Thoughts, comments, and reactions?
Posted by: Greg at
02:52 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There is no reason for any American to think that the Saudis share our interests, values, or goals with respect to the war on terror. The royal family goes through the motions of allied friendship while at the same time, pandering to the majority of its populace, spends a good sum of money supporting jihadists. State controlled news papers routinely print outrageous stories about America's decadence, and Jewish conspiracies to control the world. That 15 of the 19 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia is not a mere coincidence; giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States is not only a possibility, it is probable.
Posted by: Mustang at Mon May 30 03:20:10 2005 (nP7cz)
2
Mustang is right. Almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and there's been nothing done by the Saudis to indicate that they want more than US money and power. If we were going to invade another country post-9/11, Saudi Arabia would have been the logical choice. It's not gonna happen though. You know why.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 04:32:24 2005 (2h6qI)
3
Agreed, Dolphin. The US is depending on the energy we get out of Saudi Arabia too much to stop whatever they have going for terror, and support for terrorists.
When it comes right down to it, Saudi Arabia is too powerful to be a target in the war on terror. Hell, they own the oil, and we need the oil. Economics trumping ideology yet again, IMHO.
~A!
When it comes right down to it, Saudi Arabia is too powerful to be a target in the war on terror. Hell, they own the oil, and we need the oil. Economics trumping ideology yet again, IMHO.
~A!
Posted by: ~A! at Mon May 30 15:47:59 2005 (zjq8s)
6kb generated in CPU 0.0039, elapsed 0.0114 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.