Article

2005-07-24 Africa: North

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-07-24 11:43|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The coward barbarian attack that targeted tourists in Sharm el-Sheikh resort will give Egypt the full insistence to combat terrorism any way, any where.

In other news, the brave, defensive attacks against Israeli aggression -- aggression which is unwarranted and outside the law -- will continue with the support and prayers of muslims everywhere. . .

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2005-07-24 12:24|| 2005-07-24 12:24|| Front Page Top

#2 Al-Qaeda is not afraid to refer to "the apostate Saud regime" in their communiques. Our Muslims, however, refuse to declare terrorist groups to be apostate (murtad). They don't do so because they agree with most of the terrorist goals. Think of our Muslim leadership in terms the IRA used: an "Official" wing that used negotiation, while a "Provisional" wing used terror.

Posted by Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-24 12:47|| 2005-07-24 12:47|| Front Page Top

#3 Will the 3rd Plank from the left on the Democratic platform be Arab fair? Arab true? Juden frei? Politics, poitics.

Posted by Shipman 2005-07-24 17:49|| 2005-07-24 17:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Re: inline commentary: word.

Posted by .com 2005-07-24 17:55|| 2005-07-24 17:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Fred, your final inline comment summarizes the situation in a nutshell. Operative phrase: 'for now'.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-24 18:10|| 2005-07-24 18:10|| Front Page Top

#6 There is a short-circuit approach... it involves this narrow strip of land...

Posted by .com 2005-07-24 18:16|| 2005-07-24 18:16|| Front Page Top

#7 Pray tell....strips?

Posted by Red Dog 2005-07-24 20:10|| 2005-07-24 20:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Â»:>

Posted by Flosh Hupinter5423 2005-07-24 20:11|| 2005-07-24 20:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Well, RD, look here - #4. Affectionately referred to as establishing The Republic of Eastern Arabia, nowadays.

Posted by .com 2005-07-24 20:14|| 2005-07-24 20:14|| Front Page Top

#10 Red Dog, it's about the Republic of Eastern Arabia - all .com's idea. Basically, a 40km strip of land at the eastern side of Saudi Arabia holds most of the oil (and infrastructure?) to produce it. If that is held by a government (the RoEA) that is nothing to do with the Saudis, is pro-Western, and merely wants to produce oil, then a major source of funding for Wahabism evaporates.

Perhaps .com can point to the original article(s) where it was mentioned? I'm afraid I don't know where it is now.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-24 20:19|| 2005-07-24 20:19|| Front Page Top

#11 Bugger! - 5 minutes too late...

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-24 20:20|| 2005-07-24 20:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Tony - I finally figured out the true secret of RB... when you're in a separate article page, you'll see a Google search at the bottom which lets you search RB articles AND comments, that's how I found it again, lol! I didn't think to save it at the time - cuz the response was a tad underwhelming, to be honest.

Posted by .com 2005-07-24 20:28|| 2005-07-24 20:28|| Front Page Top

#13 Tony - to go with the milk pic.

NSFW - but it's Sunday and I've been really really good for a long time.

Posted by .com 2005-07-24 20:52|| 2005-07-24 20:52|| Front Page Top

#14 [lightbulb moment] - Google, but of course! "Goooogle, Is there nothing it can't do?"

I think the RoEA idea was probably too radical for the time (Dec 03 - GWB focussing all energies on getting Iraq sorted out and ensuring he gets re-elected to keep the momentum up) but things are different now. It seems (from what I've been reading on blogs etc) that the Democrats are going to lose more (seats?) in the 2006 elections, further strengthening Republican power. This then allows GWB some leeway to consider options like RoEA, but will it be seen as 'yet more warmongering'? And what would be the causus belli?

Horribly, it may require another attack on the US before RoEA moves onto the table - and if the assumptions we've been making about 'the ultimatum to the Saudis' is right, RoEA may not be the #1 option.

Which would be really bad news, because RoEA solves so many problems; no money for the ticks, not invading 'holy lands' (any soldiers there would be guests of the RoEA, not SA - which has gone on a crash diet), secure flow of oil (to the West *and* East - if appropriate), no money to madrassas, no money for Wahabism in other countries, no money for Mosque building in other countries and many other benefits.

It's a thought...

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-24 20:54|| 2005-07-24 20:54|| Front Page Top

#15 #13 - guffaw! :)

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-07-24 20:56|| 2005-07-24 20:56|| Front Page Top

00:02 an dalusian dog
00:01 .com
23:59 Steve White
23:54 trailing wife
23:52 bonanzabucks
23:50 Frank G
23:50 .com
23:48 AgentProvocateur
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:45 Pappy
23:44 smn
23:43 trailing wife
23:42 muck4doo
23:42 .com
23:36 Atomic Conspiracy
23:35 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
23:34 AgentProvocateur
23:34 True German Ally
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:33 .com
23:31 trailing wife
23:30 .com
23:28 Frank G
23:27 AgentProvocateur