Are the Saudis Coming Around?

[Sam_Stone]

Here’s an interesting speech by the Saudi Ambassador:

Saudi ambassador accuses Iraq war opposers of 'chutzpah’
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON

Countries that opposed the US decision to invade Iraq have no right to protest US initiatives restricting reconstruction contracts to allies, the Saudi ambassador to the US said Friday.

“It’s amazing how people who were doing everything possible to derail the success” of the Iraq war now “feel they have the right” to reconstruction contracts, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan said. “It just takes so much chutzpah.”

The ambassador’s comments on the diplomatic controversy came during a strong defense of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East. Bandar went on to rebuke Europe as ineffectual, saying at one point that he wouldn’t want to have to call on that continent’s leaders if he encountered trouble in a dark alley.

“The U.S. is the best bet,” he said, adding Saudi people are America’s “friends.”

Bandar also reiterated the Saudi condemnation of terrorism and said the U.S. had no choice but to go to war in Iraq. Removing Saddam Hussein from power “couldn’t happen by poetry. It had to happen the way that it did,” Bandar said. “The good of it outweighs all the pain that was caused by the process.”

The ambassador repeatedly praised Bush’s decisions to fight terrorism, invade Iraq and send troops to Afghanistan to oust the Taliban.

“We should be grateful for what the United States has done to get rid of those two evils, the Taliban and Saddam,” Bandar said, generating applause from hundreds in attendance of a luncheon co-sponsored by the Bilateral/U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce.

Cite.

Now, I know the Saudis are masters of PR, but I don’t think I’ve heard them speak this plainly in support of U.S. policy.

Now, I wouldn’t give all the credit on this to Bush. I think al-Qaida made a serious strategic error when it started attacking Muslims and targets on Saudi territory. The Saudis have realized that the deal they made with the devil turned out to be not so good.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**Now, I know the Saudis are masters of PR, but I don’t think I’ve heard them speak this plainly in support of U.S. policy.

Now, I wouldn’t give all the credit on this to Bush. I think al-Qaida made a serious strategic error when it started attacking Muslims and targets on Saudi territory. The Saudis have realized that the deal they made with the devil turned out to be not so good. **

What’s the point of this? When has Bandar ever said anything different?

October 27, 2003

Saudi ambassador encourages US in Middle East

Bandar urges UN security guarantees for WMD-free nations in region.

By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

MEDFORD, MASS. – In only his second appearance before the news media since Sept. 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States encouraged sustained US involvement in the Middle East especially in Iraq and between Israel and the Palestinians.

The message that America is still seen by the Saudis as indispensable to the region comes amid a period of strained relations with Washington - among the most tense in Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s 20 years as ambassador. A period that has witnessed the withdrawal of US forces from the kingdom and a private class-action lawsuit against royal officials by 9/11 survivors and relatives.

If you want a real debate, rather than just set up a strawman, you should first find a statement from Bandar that shows that he has in fact changed his tune.

Saudi Embassy Press Releases. Knock yourself out.

[Sam_Stone]

Oh, man. Look, Saudi Arabia was officially against this war not long ago. Saudi Arabia refused to allow the U.S. to use Saudi bases in the war.

As late as this year, Saudi Arabia warned the U.S. to stay out of Iraq

Now, the official spokesman for the Saudi government is saying that the war was a good and necessary thing.

Nope. No changes here.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, if a Saudi prince can use the word “chutzpah”, all is not lost.

[Rashak_Mani]

Good luck to the Saudis if the US tries to forcefeed them “democracy” too.

[adaher]

Yeah, because we all know that the average Saudi wants nothing to do with liberty. They just love being slaves in their own country.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Oh, man. Look, Saudi Arabia was officially against this war not long ago. Saudi Arabia refused to allow the U.S. to use Saudi bases in the war.

As late as this year, Saudi Arabia warned the U.S. to stay out of Iraq

Now, the official spokesman for the Saudi government is saying that the war was a good and necessary thing.

Nope. No changes here.

Is this really the depth of your analysis ?

[Aldebaran]

To the OP

Let’s stay serious, no?
Bandar is the Fox among the Foxes.
The question how he possibly can continue to stay in the game should make you wonder.
Salaam. A

[sailor]

Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship which denies freedom and human rights to its people. Why does the USA support this regime if it is so concerned with human rights, freedom and democracy for all? Why does the USA support such a tyrannical government? Why does the USA put no pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop doing the things it claims led to the invasion of Iraq?

[Alan_Owes_Bess]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Now, I wouldn’t give all the credit on this to Bush. I think al-Qaida made a serious strategic error when it started attacking Muslims and targets on Saudi territory. The Saudis have realized that the deal they made with the devil turned out to be not so good.

Sorry, Sam, I have dealt with this issue in a previous post.

The Saudis are lying (as usual).

The target was the CHRISTIAN expat Lebanese community.

(Ask yourself, do expatriate Islamic/Arab people really need to live in heavily guarded gated communities in Islamic/Arab Saudi Arabia?

It is to laugh. (Say it in French).

Here’s a link to news of the Christian Arabs killed in the Riyadh attack.
LINK

From the Link:

The November 8 bombing took place in a Lebanese Christian neighborhood of Riyadh, and of the seven publicly identified Lebanese victims, six were Christian. Lebanon’s newspapers are replete with photographs of Maronite Catholic and Greek Orthodox victims. Daleel al Mojahid, an al Qaeda-linked webpage, praised the killing of “non-Muslims.” The Middle East Media Research Institute quotes Abu Salma al Hijazi, reputed to be an al Qaeda commander, as saying that Saudi characterizations of the victims as Muslims were “merely media deceit.”
If so, the media fell for it. Reuters described the bombing as against “fellow Muslims,” the Los Angeles Times as “against Muslims,” the Washington Times called the victims “innocent Muslims,” the San Francisco Chronicle “Muslim civilians who happened to be in the wrong place,” and the New York Times “expatriates from other Muslim countries.”

OK, so some Western reporters automatically equate “Arab” with “Muslim”, so perhaps there is no deliberate attempt to deceive by the aspiring Walter Durantys involved. Ho ho ho.

As I have previously mentioned on another thread, the only reason why I decided to check this story out was the peculiar way in which the stories in the media, international and local, described the victims, ie. as Arabs from foreign countries – see the phraseology used by the NY Times and the US State Department. No actual lie was uttered here, that would be too obvious and, if found out and publicised, offensive.

Another link
LINK
provides the names of some of the victims. From a commentary by Prof Walid Phares:

The characterization of the Riyadh’s attacks took off without accurate data, hence ruining this wishful theory. Both BBC and CNN, and their media associates ignored the victims, their names, their socio-economic realities and the history of the Jihadists in this regard.
First the statistics: According to Diaspora-based Lebanese sources, among the injured from the attacks about 90 victims were Lebanese. Five Lebanese nationals were burned to death, including two children, Jad and Raya Mezher. Another newly married woman Nina Joubran was also massacred. A pregnant woman, Houry Haytaya and her husband Dany Ibrahim, were also killed. Another family, the Haidar, were murdered as well. The list of casualties is growing by the days, many persons were not found yet. But one fact is certified: The massacre of the Muhayya compound was directed at the Lebanese Christian community living in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the guards who were killed were Moslem, but the primary target of Al Quaeda was the Maronite Christians working in Riyadh, as Prof Phares points out:

Al-Qaida aimed at this vibrant community as a way to cripple one the pillars of Saudi economy. With one stone -this time a police car bomb- the Jihadists wanted to kill as many of these Lebanese “infidels” as possible. These Lebanese migrant birds were both "kafirs"and economic assets. Back in October, Usama’s audio-call through al-Jazeera called on the cleansing of Arabia from all people of the Book. There are no Jews left in the Peninsula. Most of the Americans are either gone or well protected. The next on the Jihad list are the Lebanese Christians.

All of this information is freely available on the net. The above illustrates one reason why I stopped buying newspapers in 1998.

[minty_green]

So the Saudi ambassador–a man well-known for sucking U.S. ass at every opportunity–tells a bunch of businessmen in Houston that free speech is overrated and that crony capitalism is the way to go.

Yep, I’d say that Prince Bandar is coming around to the Bush viewpoint.

[elucidator]

Post Iraq Ergo Propter Iraq

[sailor]

The Saudis qre quite good at playing this game and they have been doing it for a long time. The country is run by a large extended family and they each do and say what suits them. This guy proclaims unwavering allegiance to the US which is fine and which he has done many times before. At the same time his cousin is funding and promoting Islamic fundamentalism if not Islamic terrorism. They are pretty good at this game, that’s for sure. It’s kept them in power.

[Evil_Captor]

I’ll believe the Saudis have changed their ways when they go after the Wahhabists and drop the number of 'Princes" among them somewhere below the present level of ~30,000 princes.

Also, would it KILL them to invest in infrastructure and education.

Not doing so may yet kill the lot of them. Gonna be a lot of knives seeking Saudi hearts one day, if they don’t change their ways.

[Bouncer]

Err… can’t speak to education, but the Saudis have and do invest in infrastructure. Among other things, they desalinize more water than any other nation on earth. They build out some pretty extensive impressive telco/satcom technologies and build and maintain a rather decent highway system (The causeway to Bahrain is an engineering marvel). Their port facilities are world class.

If you ever travel there you may notice that many city based Saudis have cell phones rather permanently attached to their ear.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[Bouncer]

Err… can’t speak to education, but the Saudis have and do invest in infrastructure. Among other things, they desalinize more water than any other nation on earth. They build out some pretty extensive impressive telco/satcom technologies and build and maintain a rather decent highway system (The causeway to Bahrain is an engineering marvel). Their port facilities are world class.

If you ever travel there you may notice that many city based Saudis have cell phones rather permanently attached to their ear.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[Bouncer]

oops… double posty.

[John_Mace]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
*Post Iraq Ergo Propter Iraq *

If you say this in English, and it’s correct, we’ll still think you’re smart. Saying it in Latin doesn’t make it correct. Perhaps you are hoping that people actually don’t understand it, because it is an incorrect analysis of the situation. Note that the OP says he thinks the Saudis are coming around due to Al-Qaeda attacking them. The Iraq reference is an example of what “coming around” means. Sam is not saying that he thinks the Iraq War caused the change of heart (or mind).

[Fang]

I think so. Make sure you put out some cookies so we don’t look rude.

I have nothing to add to this thread.

[pervert]

I agree with you John Mace that elucidator’s analysis is wrong. Perhaps it belonged in the Libya thread. I did find it quite funny though. Guess I have a soft spot for puns. Even those in a dead language.