Arab terrorists are at it again.

Oerdin · May 12, 2003, 18:49

Breaking news: A series of bombs went off in RIYADH, Saudi Arabia damaging a complex housing western workers. Here are the links for Fox, CNN, and BBC.

No word yet on casualties but it is clear the terrorists are going after civilians because the U.S. Military compounds are to hard of a target for cowardly Arab terrorists.

Oerdin · May 12, 2003, 18:52

Interestingly enough last week the CIA tipped off the Saudis about an eminent Al Qaeda bomb plot and several suspects were arrested along with hundreds of pounds of explosives. Apparently, this didn't prevent the terror plot.

Pekka · May 12, 2003, 19:23

In Saudi Arabia.. doesn't surprise me much.

Oerdin · May 12, 2003, 19:39

Sadly, we have come to expect this sort of activities from Wahabists.

Dis · May 12, 2003, 21:20

I"m so glad we are leaving Sauidi Arabia

but we all know they will come up with another excuse to target the U.S. once we leave the holy lands.

JCG · May 12, 2003, 21:33

Yup....Probably U.S. presence in Iraq.

Ned · May 12, 2003, 21:58

Alright, Oerdin, I'll move my observation concerning the Shi'ites here to your thread.

The fun has begun in Saudi Arabia

We all expected this, a Shi'ite "revolt" of some kind in Saudi Arabia. Well it looks like it has begun, but peacefully.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D7QVLEM80.html

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20.../D7QVLEM80.html

Spiffor · May 12, 2003, 22:04

Once again.
Cowards and murderers.

Oerdin · May 12, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Alright, Oerdin, I'll move my observation concerning the Shi'ites here to your thread.

Thank you.

Spiffor · May 12, 2003, 22:28

Ned :
Good to see they have used the peaceful approach. The fact that the Shiites believe something can be achieved thorugh peaceful means is excellent news IMHO, and gives me much hope in Saudi's stability in the future. I sure hope the royal family won't flunk it, and won't punish the Shiites for having raised their voice.

History Guy · May 12, 2003, 22:31

Hmm...fundamentalist Islamic terrorists blowing things up...

Surprise, surprise.

MichaeltheGreat · May 12, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned :
Good to see they have used the peaceful approach. The fact that the Shiites believe something can be achieved thorugh peaceful means is excellent news IMHO, and gives me much hope in Saudi's stability in the future. I sure hope the royal family won't flunk it, and won't punish the Shiites for having raised their voice.

I've got some really nice Florida real estate I'd like to sell you.

"War is a continuation of policy by other means" - von Clausewitz.

"Policy is a continuation of war by other means" - MtG

The Shiites are a minority in Saudi, and a non-entity in Iraq at the present time.

However, Shiite status in Iraq will change, especially once the US gets out, so slow maneuvering in Saudi is timely - if the royals make concessions, the Shiites in Saudi are emboldened to push for more, and have more leverage the greater role they have in Saudi government.

If the royals don't make any concessions, like the great shaftola everyone else got after the first Gulf War led to a little cultural contamination, then the Shiite frustration level is built up to a nice simmer, pending developments in Iraq.

Straight up confrontation by the Shiites now would be crazy - they have no hope of gaining anything, but pushing gently in the political arena is a no-lose situation for them. To say the goal is benign is just a little crazy, given the nature of the leadership and their geographic position at the industrialized world's de facto scrotum.

Spiffor · May 13, 2003, 00:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Straight up confrontation by the Shiites now would be crazy - they have no hope of gaining anything, but pushing gently in the political arena is a no-lose situation for them.

Yes. But the simple fact that some Shiite elites are trying to push for political reformism rather than armed rebellion prooves that the Shiites are led by pragmatical people. They'll naturally try to milk as much as possible from the Saud's fear of an Iraqi-shiite infection, but they seem to be prone not to favor a civil war of some kind.

And this is good.

Ned · May 13, 2003, 00:17

Well, it looks like the Shi'ites going to have the majority in Iraq. So if the Saudis do not play ball with their own Shi'ite minority population and the Saudi Shi'ites revolt, they can receive material support from their brothers across the border in Iraq. Clearly the Saudis know this. If the Saudis make enough concessions, there will be peace. Otherwise, the Shi'ites may revolt. If active hostilities begin, anything can happen. Iraq might be drawn into the conflict.

Regardless of how things go, we will be put in the very uncomfortable position of having to choose sides between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I think I know what side would choose to support.

I wonder if this issus will be on the agenda for tomorrow's talks between Powell and the Saudis. Particularly, I wonder if the Saudis may ask us to put a lid on Shi'ite political power.

Ned · May 13, 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes. But the simple fact that some Shiite elites are trying to push for political reformism rather than armed rebellion prooves that the Shiites are led by pragmatical people. They'll naturally try to milk as much as possible from the Saud's fear of an Iraqi-shiite infection, but they seem to be prone not to favor a civil war of some kind.

And this is good.

Yes it is. It may suggest that the Shi'ites will ultimately play ball in Iraq. The question I have, though, is will the Saudi's ask us to "control" the Iraqi Shi'ites in some fashion. After all, they really fear the Shi'ites and their ultimate big brother, Iran.

MichaeltheGreat · May 13, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes. But the simple fact that some Shiite elites are trying to push for political reformism rather than armed rebellion prooves that the Shiites are led by pragmatical people.

I'd rather deal with blind fanatics, then strategic fanatics. There's nothing to indicate that the goals here are different. The strategy is in pushing political discontent among the population up, to be ready as the situation develops in Iraq.

Quote:

They'll naturally try to milk as much as possible from the Saud's fear of an Iraqi-shiite infection, but they seem to be prone not to favor a civil war of some kind.

Not yet.

Quote:

And this is good.

Shiite Iran + Shiite Iraq to be + Shiite push in Saudi (not to mention Kuwait, as an afterthought once the Saudis have their minds right) = Shiite control of Mecca and Medina plus most of the world's oil. It's definitely good for them.

Spiffor · May 13, 2003, 00:21

As long as the oil production isn't resurrected in Iraq, the US will have no other choice but to support SA. Besides, it is in the US highest interests to avoid the Shiites to take too much power, so I think that "putting a lid" on the Shiites was on the American agenda since the fall of Saddam

MichaeltheGreat · May 13, 2003, 00:27

They're patient people. Other empires have come and gone, so will we. Khomeini hung out in exile for 15 years, not to mention all the time he was a pain in the ass before then.

With the infidels talking democracy in Iraq, it will be very hard to derail riled-up Shiite political parties and movements.

Spiffor · May 13, 2003, 00:31

I wonder if Iraq will become an Islamic theocracy similar to Iran, an semi-Islamic republic à la Turkey, or a very decentralized country à la Belgium where the SHiites will have nearly all the power in their province, but with little influence on the other provinces.

This will depend on the willingness and the calculations of the various opinionmakers, i.e whether they'll find it more cost-efficient to sort out things with or without fighting.

Ned · May 13, 2003, 00:51

I'd like to throw into the mix that there have been many discussions between the US and Iran recently - so much so that State had to deny that we would normalize relations between Iran and the US. However, to the extent that I could read body language, the Iranian ambassador to the UN was very cordial and complementary of the US.

This is good. So, even though things might go sour fast, it does look like things are moving in the right direction across the board, except for al Qa'ida.

MichaeltheGreat · May 13, 2003, 01:31

You're always nice to the guy with the gun. Until he turns his back.

Al'Kimiya · May 13, 2003, 02:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
or a very decentralized country à la Belgium where the SHiites will have nearly all the power in their province, but with little influence on the other provinces.

and where is the Shia province of Belgium?

Ted Striker · May 13, 2003, 02:18

TIME FOR SOME MF'ING PAYBACK

Oerdin · May 13, 2003, 02:31

The good news is only one civilian was killed in all three of the suicide bomber attacks.

More of the bad guys died then innocents.

Chemical Ollie · May 13, 2003, 03:06

Some Arabs are p!ssed. I wonder why?

Ted Striker · May 13, 2003, 03:13

Because the USA is the root of all evil, etc.

CyberGnu · May 13, 2003, 03:19

Quote:

The good news is only one civilian was killed in all three of the suicide bomber attacks.

More of the bad guys died then innocents.

And what were the other nine guilty of?

BTW, it's four attacks now, apparently.

Eli · May 13, 2003, 03:21

According to the US ambassador in Saudi Arabia, 10 people were killed in these bombings.

Ted Striker · May 13, 2003, 03:24

Israel is also the root of all evil.

Jews run the US therefore US should be bombed.

Ted Striker · May 13, 2003, 03:29

MichaeltheGreat, Ming, rah, and MarkG should also be bombed.