Article

2004-06-14 Arabia

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 Dan Darling 2004-06-14 12:55:55 AM|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A fundamental requirement for civilised society is that people do not kill their neighbours on a whim. IIUC, half of Saudis support al Qaeda, and presumably enjoy seeing westerners and other non-Muslims slaughtered on their streets. Do they really aspire to adopt a near-bestial existence, like that of the Palestinians? That's what they deserve, and that's what they'll get.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-06-14 5:27:51 AM|| 2004-06-14 5:27:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Even Saudis critical of the monarchy and hostile to the United States say they do not want the religious totalitarianism promised by bin Ladenâs brownshirts.

I don't know which is true, this statement, or the polls that say they love bin Laden. But since this is an optimistic piece, I hope that this one is right.

Posted by B 2004-06-14 9:47:10 AM|| 2004-06-14 9:47:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I guess its like certain westerners who love Castro, but wouldnt want to live under him. As long as living under someone is a remote possibility, its easy to "love" them as an act of defiance, to hope that they knock off your enemies for you, etc. As long as the House of Saud is in power this "love" on the part of most Saudis is academic. If the campaign against the expats reaches the point where KSA is teetering, some people will have big decisions to make. Of course at that point there wont be opinion polls, and the expressed opinions of folks on the ground will depend on whos pointing a gun at them at an particular moment.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-14 1:18:33 PM|| 2004-06-14 1:18:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 So what is a SA patriot?

Posted by Lucky 2004-06-14 1:59:27 PM|| 2004-06-14 1:59:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Saudi mid-level princes or at least smart ones have to show the old guys the door. But it must be done respectfully and within the moral and traditional customs of Saudis. In other words, big changes will only come after Fahd, Abdullah, Naive, Sultan, and the other old princes who remember daddy (pre-1953) are dead and buried. Five years, ten years?

Then who would be left to take over? Guys like Prince al-Waleed bin Talal would be good examples. He's got business smarts and political instincts. He's slick, in other words. Slimy, if you're pessimistic. But in my opinion, he's just a younger Bandar bin Sultan type. Cigar, cars, rings, cognac. Plus, which American prez would want to deal with Waleed after he dissed us with his speech at Ground Zero?

In other words, The MK will be navigating without a captain for the foreseeable future, one faction against the other. Most folks will get on with their lives and just try to keep their heads down and if there's still something worth salvaging in 5 or ten years, then things will be OK. Not what I'd say if I were a Saudi ambassador.

Posted by Michael 2004-06-14 2:22:58 PM|| 2004-06-14 2:22:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Somebody always writes something silly like this just before the fall. The very fact that it was written makes me suspect the Soddies are closer to going under than even we suspect. I'll bet there were hundreds of similar articles written about how the Shah would be around for years to come in Iran.

Posted by Fred 2004-06-14 9:54:58 PM|| 2004-06-14 9:54:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 IMHO, Fred, I think that the Saudis will go quicker than 5 years. They have not really done anything to crush the jihadists. The 1000 Imams that they gag ordered are just laying low for a while. Every success by the jihadists builds more success, so the movement to topple the Royals will build exponentially.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-14 10:15:37 PM|| 2004-06-14 10:15:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Indeed, even Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler, reinforced the venomous rhetoric by blaming "Zionists" for the Khobar attacks.

I agree - this wasn't an 'ignorant' remark. Abdullah chose the words as a subtle insult. This is a war between princes, and the jihadists are another weapon, just like the security apparatus. I'm not prescient, so I don't know if the jihadists will 'win'. But the Saudis are more ruthless than the Shah ever was.

Posted by Pappy 2004-06-14 11:12:39 PM|| 2004-06-14 11:12:39 PM|| Front Page Top

02:07 Zenster
01:11 Old Grouch
00:22 .com
00:21 .com
00:16 Darth VAda
00:10 Mark Espinola
00:02 Yank
23:59 Quana
23:56 joe
23:54 Pappy
23:46 Long Hair Republican
23:35 Pappy
23:35 Atomic Conspiracy
23:32 Mark Espinola
23:31 Alaska Paul
23:24 A Jackson
23:16 Pappy
23:14 Alaska Paul
23:12 Pappy
23:11 Alaska Paul
23:00 Alaska Paul
22:56 Rafael
22:54 JDB
22:48 Gromky