Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Most Outside Insurgents in Iraq Come From Saudi Arabia

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:40 AM
Original message
Most Outside Insurgents in Iraq Come From Saudi Arabia
Did Military and Media Mislead Us? Most Outside Insurgents in Iraq Come from Saudi Arabia

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 15, 2007 8:40 AM ET

NEW YORK For years, polls have shown that very large numbers of Americans continue to falsely believe that some of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. In reality, the overwhelming number hailed from the land of a U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia.

Now it turns out that Saudi Arabia is also home to the largest number of so-called "foreign fighters" in Iraq, despite administration efforts -- aided by many in the media -- to paint Iran and Syria as the main outside culprits there.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers, about 45% of all foreign militants "targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia." Only 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa. This is based on official U.S. military figures made available to newspaper by the senior officer.

Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

"Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity," the Times' Ned Parker writes. "It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. and hand in hand the prince and the king walk through the texas estate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. It is a police state and the people do talk about freedom to you.
Having lived there and in the our side part where you had daily doing with the people. In their stores etc. I would say they are unhappy people in their govt. but do not dare to do any thing about it. Their are police or army people every place and they all have guns and checking papers at every cross road etc. Then on top of that they have the religious police every place with their sticks watching people. When it is time to pray many Saudi jump into their cars and drive around. It is sort of funny. I would say the Middle will blow and blow high. In the Middle ages the churches backed the royals and kept the people in their so called place. I would say this is the same. It will be war with the powerful on one side and people with new thoughts on the other who want change. It will sure be a mess and Bush and the US is going to stay with the royals I can bet. The first Bush did. We went to war to put a royal ruler back in power. Does any one think we will do anything else? After all he was our 'ruler' just as once Saddam was our ruler once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Well, SA has an unemployment problem.
The indolent upper/upper middle class indigenous population just doesn't like hard work. In the old days, when the oil was pumping like mad, they didn't HAVE to work. They had great titles and offices, and pretty much sat on their asses.

They won't do the hands-on, dirty work they import people to do, they prefer easy jobs and everyone wants to be in charge, but those easy jobs have been cut through efficiencies. These unemployed bastards (on stipends, but not like the old days, when the money flowed easy) sit around and listen to these obnoxious mullahs, who don't have real jobs either. A bunch of assholes, shooting off their mouths, sitting on their asses--and they do encourage these indolent kids who don't want to work to go off and do the Jihad thing.

Also, there's another dynamic. The Saudi Arabians are also there in Iraq specifically to support the Iraqi Sunnis. They're targeting the Shi'a, because the Shi'a are targeting the Sunni.

Remember that 'summons' that Dick Cheney got to go see the Crown Prince? Here's the result of that. Dick refused to have the US military 'guard' the Sunni neighborhoods, as the House of Saud wanted, so they're taking matters into their own hands, apparently. One way of handling it is to reduce the population of the opposition, one bomber at a time...

What would be interesting is if we learned, over time, that Bush actually WASN'T stupid--but that he went into Iraq not because he didn't know who the hell attacked us, but instead because the SAUDIS wanted him to--picture the Crown Prince's one-way conversation: "You don't go into Iraq, dump that Pan Arab bastard Saddam, and light this shit off so we can start pushing back on Iran and the greater Shi'a community, and you've got four dollar gas starting tomorrow, capisce?" That's some "jawboning" FROM OPEC, I'd guess.

It could be they figured they needed to get this Shi'a threat under control once and for all, and they wanted their proxy army, the US Army, to do it FOR them---only problem is, our state department is now so full of hacks (they fired all the good people, or they left in disgust) that they don't know a Shi'a from a Chia Pet. And the military didn't have anyone left who could divine the difference either, apparently--or if they did, their boots weren't on the ground where they were needed.

In any event, that can of worms is wide open. I'd love to get inside Bandar's head--he knows the REAL story, and I don't think it is quite the story we're getting.

There's no defusing, there's no "Tito of Arabia" to strongarm and control the assorted factions. It's a scary place, that region, with all those tensions nowadays.

It's just funny, how much we let SA "get away" with crap we wouldn't tolerate from any other nation in the region. That's why there's gotta be more to this than we see:

    Yet hardly a word has been directed at Saudi Arabia (which also drew relatively little criticism after 9/11) by the White House and Pentagon. Some observers suggest the Saudis are happy to have militants leave, which alleviates some of the threats in-country.

    "U.S. officials remain sensitive about the relationship," Parker explains. "Asked why U.S. officials in Iraq had not publicly criticized Saudi Arabia the way they had Iran or Syria, the senior military officer said, 'Ask the State Department. This is a political juggernaut.'

    "Last week when U.S. military spokesman Bergner declared Al Qaeda in Iraq the country's No. 1 threat, he released a profile of a thwarted suicide bomber, but said he had not received clearance to reveal his nationality. The bomber was a Saudi national, the senior military officer said Saturday."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tanuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. k & r
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I think this needs to be more widely known and discussed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 28th 2014, 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC