"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them, yada yada yada, tooth-fairy, Easter Bunny, Brooklyn Bridge for sale..."
Posted on 06/11/2003 5:52:46 PM PDT by ewing
Saudi Nationals have joined the Sunni insurgency against United States Troops in Iraq. At least one US Soldier daily has been killed over the past few weeks.
Meanwhile a US based Saudi opposition organization has reported that two Saudi Nationals have been killed in the sporadic fighting Middle East Newsline reported.
Last week, the US Armys Third Division sent its 2nd Brigade to launch an operation in several Sunni cities to quell the insurgency.
US Officials confimed that Saudi nationals have financed and participated in the Sunni insurgency. They said elements in Saudi Arabia view the US Military presence in Iraq as that of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1980's.
Western diplomatic sources said that that members of the Royal Family have helped to finance the Sunni insurgency against Iraq. They said they have helped purchase weapons and send Saudi nationals to fight in Iraq.
More than 100 Saudi nationals have been sent to help the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the sources said. They said this includes the Saudis who have played a role in attacks on US combat forces in Faluja, located 65 kilometers west of Baghdad and regarded as the center of Sunni resistance.
On Wednesday, the London based Al Hayat daily reported the US Troops captured nearly 400 suspected Iraqi insurgents in a search operation in several Sunni cities.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldtribune.com ...
Will someone please call the FBI & CiA and inform them of this move.
Gees!
================================
And, as the reports put it, "Arabs of undetermined origin", ie Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza.
They're just looking for a home.
G.I.'s in Iraqi City Are Stalked by Faceless Enemies at Night
It's not fair for me to hold them accountable for their previous "news" stories.
Oh yeah - Those Saudis are real scared of the Bush Administration. They blow away 3,000 Americans on 9-11, travel to Afghanistan to kill U.S. soldiers, go to Iraq to kill more U.S. soldiers, blow up American civilians in Saudi Arabia - and get away clean with all of it.
ewing:Those Saudi Royals had better consider their next actions extremely carefully.
I make no conclusions based on unnamed sources. Appearently, you do.
'Agenda Reporting'
A 'Cept for shorthand critique of NYTimes reporting.
Thanks !
The contradiction begins to emerge. First, we have Prince Naif's confirmation a week and a half earlier of Ali al-Ghamdi's surrender. Second, we have the reports of al-Ghamdi's capture in the Medina sweeps and Prince Naif's refusal to confirm them.
Al Watan and the Saudi press: aren't they aware that the Prince had confirmed al-Ghamdi's surrender a week and a half earlier?
Prince Naif: perhaps he didn't confirm reports of al-Ghamdi's capture in Medina because of his earlier comments to Awsat?
Go figure.
Mr. Raid Saud Qusti
Riyadh Bureau Chief
The Arab NewsDear Mr. Qusti,
On May 15th a piece entitled "We Won’t Tolerate Instigators: Naif" with your byline appeared in the Arab News.
Included in your article was this sentence: "Prince Naif confirmed that one of the 19 terrorist suspects, Ali Abdul Rahman Al-Ghamdi, had surrendered to security authorities."
The url for your article no longer exists on the Arab News server, but it has been archived by Fred Pruitt at his weblog Rantburg. - "We Won’t Tolerate Instigators: Naif"
On June 5th Sa'id al Harthi, an advisor to Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef, told Knight Ridder in a telephone interview that reports in the Saudi press [the] last week [in May] that al-Ghamdi was in custody were not true.
Mr. Harthi was referring to reports, which first appeared in al-Watan I believe, in which Saudi sources claimed that Abdul Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi had been captured in the Medina sweeps.
If Prince Naif is on record, in your article, as having confirmed al-Ghamdi's surrender, how is it possible for him to have been, even allegedly, captured for a second time in the Medina sweeps? Did he escape only to be captured again?
Secondly, Mr. Harthi's statement, which represents Prince Naif's position after all, that al-Ghamdi was not in custody is opposed to the Prince's words in your May 15th article where he says that al-Ghamdi had surrendered.
Prince Naif has contradicted himself. How are we to explain this?
Any response from you addressing these points would be most welcomed.
Regards,
Robert Stevens
NY, NY
To his credit Mr. Qusti replied promptly to my email.
How do i explain that Prince Naif contradicted himself? I can't. Maybe you're better off asking him that question.
There are three possibilities for the tone of Mr. Qusti's response. It could be taken as short and to the point, or as vague and rude. The third possibility? Perhaps Mr. Qusti is commenting without commenting. (See: The perils of journalism in the Arab world)
While he did not offer an explanation for the contradictory statements made by Prince Naif regarding Ali al-Ghamdi, I think we can assume that he stands by his report.
Mr Abdul Rahman al-Rashed
Editor-in-Chief
Asharq al-AwsatDear Mr Al-Rashed,
I am writing you in hopes that you can clear up some confusion on my part concerning the status of Ali Abd Al-Rahman Al-Ghamdi.
The reason I am writing you concerning this matter is that Asharq Al-Awsat was cited in Raid Qusti's Arab News piece of May 15th entitled "We Won’t Tolerate Instigators: Naif"
In his piece Mr. Qusti writes that Interior Minister Prince Naif told Asharq Al-Awsat "Prince Naif confirmed that one of the 19 terrorist suspects, Ali Abdul Rahman Al-Ghamdi, had surrendered to security authorities."
Taken alone, this is very good news indeed.
However, On May 29th Al-Watan, and subsequently the international press, reported that Ali Al-Ghamdi had been captured in the Medina sweeps. Prince Naif would not confirm these reports.
What is strange here is not Prince Naif's refusal to confirm Al-ghamdi's capture. What is strange is this; If Al-Ghamdi was already in custody on the 15th, why is Al-Watan, tipped by Saudi sources, reporting Al-Ghamdi had been captured on the 27th or 28th in the Medina sweeps?
You may ask how does this concern Asharq Al-Awsat? Fair enough.
On June 4th Sa'id al Harthi, an advisor to Prince Naif, told Knight Ridder in a telephone interview that reports in the Saudi press [the] last week [in May] that al-Ghamdi was in custody were not true.
This is a stunning reversal of Prince Naif's comments to Asharq Al-Awsat in mid-May.
Thus, the importance of Mr. Qusti's piece in the Arab News and, more importantly, the Asharq Al-Awsat piece which Mr. Qusti cited.
If I may say so, and with all due respect Mr. Al-Rashed, I'm afraid it now falls to Asharq Al Awsat, and to you as editor-in-chief, to either stand by Awsat's May 15th report or offer a retraction, that is if you haven't already offered one.
Perhaps Mr Qusti misquoted Asharq Al-Awsat? That is a possibility.
If not and Asharq Al-Awsat stands by its story, Prince Naif owes us all an explanation for his contadictory claims. Note that when Mr al Harthi states that press reports of Al-Ghamdi's capture are untrue he is speaking as a representative for Prince Naif, which is just as good as Prince Naif making the comments himself.
So, I will put the question to you officially Mr. Al-Rashed: does Asharq Al-Awsat stand by its report in which statements given to Awsat by Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif indicate the surrender of Ali Abd Al-Ghamdi to Saudi authorities in mid-May?
Further, if you would like to offer any personal opinion regarding Al-Ghamdi's whereabouts I would welcome that also.
In closing, let me add that since I do not speak Arabic, and therefore cannot read Awsat's website, I always look forward to reading your essays at Arabview.com. Also, the TIDES Middle East Report sometimes publishes English translations of articles that appear in Awsat.
Thank you, Mr Al-Rashed, for your time and attention to the matter concerning Prince Naif's comments to Awsat and hope that you will be able to clarify this matter to some degree.
Regards,
Robert Stevens
NY, NY
I emailed Mr. al-Rashed on Sunday. I have not received a response.
Who's going to say boo to them?
Good point.
If they were hanging out around my place, they would soon require attention to remove large quantities of lead projectiles from their bodies (strictly to make them presentable for their funeral). But that's just me. I'm sure nobody else would react the same way. ;O)
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them, yada yada yada, tooth-fairy, Easter Bunny, Brooklyn Bridge for sale..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.