Hundreds of Saudi Terrorists Caught on Way to Iraq
Maybe the calls to Jihad from the Saudi Chief Justice have had some effects?Hundreds of Saudi Terrorists Caught on Way to Iraq
Syrian authorities are holding 137 Saudi nationals suspected of trying to cross into Iraq, where militants have been waging a two-year insurgency since the U.S. invasion, the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan said on Thursday. Citing unnamed sources it said the detainees included 62 in the Syrian city of Deir al-Zour and 25 in the town of Albukmal -- both near the Iraqi border -- as well as others held in jails run by security forces. The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq enraged many conservative Muslims and Web sites have urged Saudis to slip across the border and fight. Saudi authorities have tightened security on their northern frontier but hundreds of militants are believed to have travelled to Syria and crossed into Iraq from there.
posted by Unknown @ 11:31 PM
8 Comments:
Why am I not surprised?
Most of these Saudis couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. The problem is that they are quite capable of driving an explosives-laden vehicle up to a building and killing a lot of people as they continue on in their journey into hell.
How do you know they are "terrorists"? If they are going to kill occupying coalition soldiers and/or Iraqis they see as collaborators, e.g. the Iraqi security forces, are they still "terrorists"?
If you are thinking of civilian deaths, the "insurgents" (or "terrorists" if you insist) have a long way to go before catching up with coalition forces. This is a fact; an incovenient and uncomfortable one for some, but a fact nonetheless.
While the capture of these guys, who would've only contributed to the instability and death and suffering in Iraq, is good news in the short run, you are fighing against a mindset here. A mindset which is produced by circumstances (e.g. a perceived western menace to the Islamic world) which the Iraq invasion has done nothing to dispel (in fact, quite the opposite). This mindset still seems able to draw adherents, i.e. recruit more "terrorists", and this too shows no signs of significant slowing.
"paper bag"
This reminds me of Bush's stupid "bring 'em on" remark. Maybe they don't have the military training or advanced weapons the coalition forces possess, but they are not stupid (recall the planning and patience that went into the 9/11 attacks) and have proven they are able to build bombs and pull triggers and are willing to die in this fight. Remember the Havana scene in 'The Godfather II'? Where Michael Corleone sees a rebel detonate a grenade to kill himself and a police officer? And later he says he see this as evidence they can win?
We will see.
"How do you know they are "terrorists"? If they are going to kill occupying coalition soldiers and/or Iraqis they see as collaborators, e.g. the Iraqi security forces, are they still "terrorists"?"
As long as they hide among the civilian population without uniforms, thereby putting civilians at risk, then yes they are terrorists. If they want to be considered "freedom fighters" then they can put on uniforms and fight like soldiers.
"uniforms"
Think partisans -- partisans do not wear uniforms. And 'hiding' amongst, or blending in with, the civilian population has always been and will always be an important part of their strategy; I've occasionally seen before how some people hint this is in some way dishonorable, but I'm not buying it. As has been shown over and over, this kind of guerrilla fighting can be very effective. Which is the whole point
Some of these guy are terrorists -- they way they seem to indiscriminately target civilians with some of the bombs. But if they target the security forces, e.g. people lining up to join them, and civilians nearby happen to get killed too, well then things are not so simple, terminology-wise...
Instead of Iraq we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. Money for 9-11 came from this country, Terrorists came from this country. What more do we need to see that the Saudi's are not our friends? Bush, Republicans, and Democrats are really pissing me off that they refuse to acknowledge this fact.
Oh, and they are murderers, not freedom fighters. Freedom fighters do not kill innocent civlians buying food.
"Maybe they don't have the military training or advanced weapons the coalition forces possess, but they are not stupid (recall the planning and patience that went into the 9/11 attacks) and have proven they are able to build bombs and pull triggers and are willing to die in this fight."
You're confusing those trained in camps with the cannon fodder sent over from Saudi Arabia at the behest of Wahabbi imans. The former are more educated and trained while the latter are in it for a ticket to paradise. The former build the bombs and the latter push the buttons. You don't have to be smart to push a trigger button -- you just have to be willing. And considering that they mostly just blow up Iraqi civilians, they are doing nothing to ensure that they can win.
Anonymous wrote:
"If you are thinking of civilian deaths, the "insurgents" (or "terrorists" if you insist) have a long way to go before catching up with coalition forces. This is a fact; an incovenient and uncomfortable one for some, but a fact nonetheless."
Would you care to provide a source for this? Or should we all just take your word? I seem to remember the BBC making a similar claim, then having to retract it once they realized they had misread/misunderstood the statistics.
Post a Comment
<< Home