| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Saudi royal guard aided al-Qaeda in Riyadh bombings |
| 2004-05-17 |
Al-Qa'ida terrorists whose suicide bombs killed 35 people and injured 200 at a housing compound in Riyadh last May were secretly assisted by certain members of the Saudi National Guard which protects the royal family, military trainers employed by a US firm have claimed. In exclusive interviews with The Independent on Sunday, the former trainers for the Vinnell Corporation, which has an $800m (£460m) contract to advise the Saudi National Guard, allege:* Some members of the Saudi National Guard knew about the bombing in advance and gave inside help to al-Qa'ida, including possibly a detailed map of the target.These claims will renew the controversy over the failure of the Saudi royal family to deal with Islamic insurgents. In recent weeks al-Qa'ida has renewed its attacks on Western targets in Saudi Arabia which have killed several British workers. The former trainers, who were injured in the attack, will require long-term medical care and now plan to sue Vinnell for compensation. They thus have a case to make, but their lawyer, Richard Fields, of Dickstein Shapiro in Washington, said: "They believe that Vinnell failed completely to take any measures to protect them." Vinnell, a subsidiary of the US defence contractor Northrop Grumann, has denied that security arrangements were deficient. It maintains the compound was "secure" and "hardened" but declined to comment when further questioned by the IoS. The bombing on 12 May 2003 was implemented with precision based on meticulous intelligence. Lt-Col Raphael Maldonado, then a Vinnell instructor, claims al-Qa'ida received inside assistance from National Guard members. "This compound was too big and complex to be bombed without inside help", he said. He points to the discovery of a detailed map in the car left behind by the assailants and an improvised ladder consisting of concrete blocks and the trace of shoe markings made by people rushing to escape just before the explosion. On the morning of the atrocity, Lt-Col Maldonado noticed that none of his Saudi co-workers was present. A fellow Vinnell adviser angrily told him that a Saudi National Guard commander had suddenly notified him that they were leaving the compound to perform night manouevres with 50 trainers. "I don't understand why they are suddenly going into the field for just one night," he told Lt-Col Maldonado, who was even more concerned when he drove past the local mosque at noon and noticed far fewer shoes outside the door than usual. Lt-Col Maldonado believes that removing 50 of the 70 Vinnell trainers on what he claims was a "pointless" and unscheduled expedition 40 miles away just before the bombing, was deliberate, leaving the compound defenceless. "There is no doubt we were set up," he said. "Someone in the upper echelons of the Saudi National Guard knew the bombing was imminent." A former Vinnell security officer, Felix Acevedo, argues that the compound was a sitting target because of the lack of vigilance on the gate. "The terrorists could see that the security was insufficient to keep them out," he said. Despite regular complaints, security was not upgraded. "It was unbelievable," said Lt-Col Maldonado. "The large steel gates were left open. There were just two to four Saudi guards at one corner with only 9mm guns. There was a machine gun on a vehicle, but it was unloaded because the gun did not have a belt to connect the ammunition to the gun's feeder. The lighting was inadequate and there were no night-vision devices. There were no wire barriers above the security walls, no metal detectors, no cameras to monitor access, no weapons checks and no bomb-detection dogs for vehicles. And Saudi nationals not working at Vinnell were not checked on entry." The bomb, estimated to be 400lb of Semtex, was devastating. The front of the high-rise block was destroyed and the blast was so extensive that it was felt miles away. But it should not have been a surprise to the Saudi royal family and Vinnell. For there had been warnings that al-Qa'ida was targeting softer, less-secure sites in Riyadh. Two weeks earlier an individual was seen videoing the front-gate operations at the compound. A guard gave chase but he avoided capture. A week later the same individual was one of nine terrorist suspects captured during a raid in Riyadh. On 1 May 2003 the US State Department declared there were "strong indications" that Islamic militants "may be in the final phases of planning an attack on American interests in Saudi Arabia". This was based on intercepted satellite phone calls and "intelligence traffic" showing contact between Osama bin Laden's son, Saad, and an al-Qa'ida cell in Riyadh. The US ambassador, Robert Jordan, pleaded with Vinnell to upgrade security. And, a week before the bombing, a huge weapons cache was discovered by police at an al-Qa'ida safe house in Riyadh. According to The Washington Post, the arms had been sold by Saudi National Guard members to al-Qa'ida. The Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Nayef, condemned the bombing and called for public assistance in capturing 19 suspects. But the reaction showed how al-Qa'ida has retained support. Three prominent clerics declared the terrorists were "devout" men and called on people to disobey the regime's request. They said any help to the police would constitute aid to the US in its "war against Islam". Ten of the suspects remain at large. For the former trainers the memory of 12 May is intensely painful. Lt-Col Maldonado now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr Acevedo was so badly lacerated that he was unrecognisable. He needed 94 units of blood and was kept in hospital for two months. "It was a senseless and needless tragedy," he said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #24 Nuclear can never be the answer because the pollution it produces lasts for millenia but .... Why is everyone so goddamm irrational over nuclear power. Pollution is minimal and wastes can easily be disposed off by putting them in deep holes in the ground. Ontario (Canada) has solved the (PR) problem by calling the technology used in its dozen or so nuclear power stations 'Slowpoke'. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2004-05-17 7:22:47 PM |
| #23 All we need is the fabulous Pogue carb. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-17 7:16:17 PM |
| #22 What are the French, Belgians, and Japanese doing with their nuclear waste? I've never seen an article in an American publication on this topic. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-05-17 7:15:02 PM |
| #21 Nuclear can never be the answer because the pollution it produces lasts for millenia but human civilizations only have detailed memories for a few hundred years. The concerns over nuclear waste and its potential hazards to future generations pale in comparison to the clear and present danger of oil-funded terrorists. Which do you honestly fear more? What does the future postulated unaccounted-for and unshielded waste matter if we are all dead? We must solve the more difficult political problem of oil-funded terrorism by getting off the oil teet. Waste storage is/has been a solvable techincal problem. I have lived, worked and slept near (measured in feet) reactors and fuel storage faciities for years. Not one of them has threatened to kill me in creative ways. For an overview of the future of nuclear power, read this Sandia Lab article. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2004-05-17 7:11:12 PM |
| #20 The debate of which way to go is a matter of public policy and not the bailiwick of closed door meetings. However, I do not think that our present national leadership, and I include the congress in this, have the courage and fortitude to make things like getting off Saudi crude a reality. Thank you, Alaska Paul, for making sure this did not escape our discussion. Special interests (i.e., Detroit and big-oil) are buying off every vote imaginable to prevent America from attaining oil independence. This needs to be a top priority and it is not at this time. Oil has enormous "hidden" costs in terms of pollution and other side effects (cancer, spill cleanup, etc.) that, if properly accounted for, make it insanely more expensive that current economic projections exhibit. The Saudis are not our friends and never have been. It's time to change dance partners and bring our own technological solutions to the table. All leaders of every political stripe who have prevented this in the preceeding decades will one day face condemnation for their shortsighted policies regarding this matter. If America cannot bring itself to find a solution to oil dependence, we must gird for a routine and regular string of 9-11s in the future. Such a thing is simply not acceptable. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-17 1:43:47 PM |
| #19 What is your energy source to produce the hydrogen? 1. Build hundreds of nuclear power stations. Nuclear power can be operated safely. Merely examine France's power generation program. Sadly, in America our government only had expertise in building nuclear bombs and handed the reins of power plant building over to commercial interests who low-bid these vital and potentially dangerous facilities. To paraphrase Hyman Rickover: "The problem with commercial nuclear power is that you do not have the military option of taking wrongdoers outside and shooting them." We need to build many nuclear power plants thereby consolidating the eletrical generation needed for hydrolizing water on a massive scale. This will reduce the environmental impact of scattering all sorts of less effecient generating sources (solar, wind, tidal) plus reduce incipient losses in gridding their power output. Such building must be accompanied by similar thrusts towards the attainment of fusion based power generation. Our current natural gas delivery infrastructure can be reconfigured to deliver hydrogen rather well. Modern valve and interlock technology, along with compact inexpensive hydrogen sensors have rendered many originally valid safety concerns irrelevant. For an extremely interesting overview, I recommend that people peruse "Taking Lasers Beyond the National Ignition Facility." America has the technological expertise to overcome it's unnecessary dependence on oil. The Alaskan slopes only contain a few months or years of operating capacity for our country and are definitely not the answer. We need to get unhooked from the slow drip IV of death that Arabian oil represents. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-17 1:34:00 PM |
| #18 It's high time we started drilling at home so Persian Gulf oil can remain there, in the sand & under the warm waters of the Gulf. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-05-17 1:22:22 PM |
| #17 Source of Hydrogen? Duh, water. Very good DBT, but the problem is where do you get all the electricty needed to extract the H2 from the H2O? Electrical generating plants are having trouble keeping up with current load. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-05-17 12:54:47 PM |
| #16 Source of Hydrogen? Duh, water. |
| Posted by: Dog Bites Trolls 2004-05-17 12:39:23 PM |
| #15 Big Ed. We could stage a big rally to shave, I mean save, the whales and carribou and put them all in a nature preserve. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-05-17 12:10:31 PM |
| #14 A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. A4617 - And in John Kerry we have an ambitious fool. All Alaska Drillers - Yes, but, how to we get past the eco-cabal in the congress? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-17 11:54:16 AM |
| #13 Phil B gets to the heart of the problem we face with a new energy source, and that is where do we get the hydrogen? Something has to be converted to make hydrogen, and that takes energy. Petroleum was the product of chemical reactions powered by the sun millions of years ago, sort of a solar savings account. Now we are withdrawing from that account. The answer is that we will have to use and develop lots of alternatives to oil. Crude oil is a relatively easy source of energy to exploit, which is why it is so hard to get off of. Since we as a people have not had the will to look seriously down different paths since the embargo of '73, maybe prices will kick us collectively in the butt to make it happen. The debate of which way to go is a matter of public policy and not the bailiwick of closed door meetings. However, I do not think that our present national leadership, and I include the congress in this, have the courage and fortitude to make things like getting off Saudi crude a reality. When the people lead, the leaders will follow. I think that this is one of those situations. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-05-17 9:38:18 AM |
| #12 Yeah, Raptor, sure. You still haven't answered the key question -- where's the H2 come from? It takes energy to produce it, where's that energy supposed to come from? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-17 9:22:55 AM |
| #11 Gotta disagree,Phil.H2 fuel cell is the way to go. The probles are,for now: High initial cost for fuel cell engines. This will drop with improvents in technology and manufacturing.I heard on a docu the other day that Germany has 1 or 2 subamrines that are operating on fuel cell tech(can you back this up TGA) And infrastructure,I believe the oil industry is instramental in delaying this. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-05-17 8:59:11 AM |
| #10 Deacon Blues, Bingo! |
| Posted by: Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 7:36:37 AM |
| #9 Drill on the North Slope of Alaska |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-05-17 7:34:12 AM |
| #8 Anon1 - Ethanol from agricultural products takes more energy (about twice as much) to produce as it yields in energy. So for every barrel of oil equivalent of ethanol you produce, you have to import 2 barels of oil. Moronic is not adequate to describe this lunacy. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-17 6:19:09 AM |
| #7 I still reckon a good way off of Saudi black slag is ethanol. Cars already run on it, no need to change the infrastructure. Just need to modify engines: no plastic/aluminium (i think) parts will go as the ethanol eats it, but everything else = OK. I remember ages ago I posted links to rantburg about the specs of converting an engine so it takes ethanol. Ethanol can be produced by growing corn-stalks or non-THC Hemp (ie: hippies can't get high off it). YES it is more expensive than Saudi Black Slag. BUT it is BETTER than paying billions daily to people who are trying to KILL us! I'd rather pay double and be weaned off the habit. Several car companies already make ethanol cars you can buy one today. I posted that link here ages ago, too. Here's a different site from Canada. Ignore the greenie stuff and just focus on this: freedom from Saudi black Slag (oil) http://www.ethanol-crfa.ca/vehiclehome.htm Here's a site that tells you how to modify your EXISTING vehicle to run on ethanol fuel: http://terrasol.home.igc.org/alky/alky1.htm Ethanol used to be used (and i think still is in some cases) to operate farm machinery. Farmers loved it as they could make their own fuel when needed. Nuclear is not the answer. We have gas reserves before we go Nuclear. Nuclear can never be the answer because the pollution it produces lasts for millenia but human civilizations only have detailed memories for a few hundred years. Case in point: old Nuclear dumping grounds that no longer have warning signs on them. Case in point: people now living in the exclusion zone of Chernobyl less than 30 years after. Hidden environmental, social and medical costs associated with cleaning up after the nuclear industry mean it is actually more expensive than other seemingly less efficient but greener technologies. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2004-05-17 6:07:17 AM |
| #6 A Hydrogen economy will do diddly squat to solve the problem. What is your energy source to produce the hydrogen? H2 technology is just greenie snake oil. As I have pointed out before there are only three options to become free of oil imports. 1. Build hundreds of nuclear power stations. 2. Build a massive coal based syn-gas and syn-oil infrastructure 3. Build massive infrastructure to import LNG, although this still leaves the USA dependent on imports. Take your pick? |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-17 3:49:06 AM |
| #5 Zester, "And these "three prominent clerics" are still walking around free after openly advocating sedition? This is a clear symptom of the real problem at hand. The terrorists are merely a byproduct of these beturbaned thugs." This is because the branch of the the Royal Family that advocates breaking all ties with the US is protecting those clerics. Remember Prince Naif, the one who still says that Sept 11th was carried out by the CIA and the Mossad? He is part of that branch. Both branches do agree on one thing: that they need the Imans and Mullahs to preach hatred towards Americans and Jews to divert the saudis' attention away from the rising unemployement and the rapid fall of living standards. Those clerics were probably put on probation. We will not cut your heads off this time but, you have to promise to double your dose of hatred towards jews and westerners, mainly Americans, in your sermons and to never, ever, mention the Royal Family again. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 3:48:09 AM |
| #4 It's high time we had the Sa'udis over a barrel! It's also high time that America divert its fabulous technological expertise towards supplanting internal combustion driven transportation. Sadly, an H2 infrastructure is still gated by onboard storage within the vehicles themselves. New metal hydride chemistries and composite containment tanks show great promise but need massive infusions of grant based research to drive them towards fruition. So long as big-oil and the automotive industry are able to collude in steering America towards continued dependency upon Middle East petroleum and oil in general, our nation's military and economic security are dangerously compromised. Regarding the Saudis, at some point, we must be able to say; "Let them drink oil." Until then, we are at the mercy of the very worst sort of blackguards and thugs known on earth. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-17 2:50:41 AM |
| #3 The Saudi OPEC oil barons having been playing the American public for suckers for years, while bankrolling every Wahhabi-cult-linked terrorist group in the world. Not helping matters what-so-ever are some of the largest American, British, Dutch and other multinational oil companies which have been in bed with the 'royal family' of Arabian terrorist promoting backstabbers. Soon, after the two interconnected rouge jihad promoting states of Syria and Iran are dealt with firmly (action is forthcoming, count on it) the House of Sa'ud must be toppled, and the vast Arabian crude oil reserves protected from the jihadic enemy (if possible). The missing link concerning Sa'udi Arabia's enormous petroleum infrastructure is, will al-Qa'ida's planted terrorist moles already deeply hidden among the thousands of oil workers employed in Sa'udi Arabia, collapses the Sa'udi economy by way of multi-targeted acts of devastating sabotage, which would also immediately result in a panic on Wall Street, coupled with the commodity, currency and bond markets. Any major attacks on the enormous Sa'udi oil fields will trigger a rush to buy crude oil contracts and therefore increasing global prices to levels resulting in dangerous hyperinflation, not seen since the last time the Sa'udis triggered the Arab Oil Embargo against America for assisting Israel against invading Arab states during the Yom Kippur war of October-1973. It's high time we had the Sa'udis over a barrel! |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-05-17 2:18:27 AM |
| #2 Three prominent clerics declared the terrorists were "devout" men and called on people to disobey the regime's request. And these "three prominent clerics" are still walking around free after openly advocating sedition? This is a clear symptom of the real problem at hand. The terrorists are merely a byproduct of these beturbaned thugs. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-17 2:12:11 AM |
| #1 I could easily see something like that happening in the US. There are hundreds of thousands of "American"-muslims eager and willing to help (or look the other way) their brothers from abroad to carry out attacks on American Soil. I believe that those "American"-muslims are far more dangerous than muslim terrorists from outside the country. "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But a traitor moves among those within the gate freely, and his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys are heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to their victims and wears their face and their garments, and appeals to the baseness which lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of the nation; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." |
| Posted by: Anonymous4617 2004-05-17 1:55:11 AM |