Bombings in Riyadh

[Ziggurat]

The bombings earlier this month in Riyadh were quite a puzzle to me. While it should be quite apparent by now that terrorists don't genuinely care for the wellfare of the muslim world, I couldn't figure out what they were trying to actually gain from the attack. The media wasn't giving any real motive, nothing obvious stood out (it wasn't a westerner's compound, it wasn't part of the political structure of the Saudi gov't), and the Saudis weren't really saying anything. I knew something was missing from the puzzle, and I've found a rather informative column that fills in the missing piece of the puzzle. The compound was for foreign arabs (largely lebanese) working in Saudi Arabia. But the critical piece missing from the mainstream press is that there were a lot of Christian arabs among the victims.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/711

That's the missing justification, and that's what the Saudi government wants to keep silent.

[a_unique_person]

I don't think that holds water at all. From what I read, just as many of them were Muslim. The aim, from what I have read, is to destabilise the current regime because it is too Pro Western.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't think that holds water at all. From what I read, just as many of them were Muslim. The aim, from what I have read, is to destabilise the current regime because it is too Pro Western.

As I said, I don't think they care about collateral damage - the fact that they ALSO killed Muslims is irrelevant to them (and as the article stated, part of the reporting of this comes from the incorrect assumption that arabs are all muslims). The question is what their target was. Yes, I've heard plenty of people saying that it was to destablise the regime, and that goal makes sense. But the target does NOT make sense in that regard. Killing Arab foreign workers doesn't destabilse the government (why didn't they attack a government building?), and it doesn't drive a wedge between them and the west. But it does kill and frighten non-muslim arabs, who are just as much targets of the terrorists as westerners are. The press isn't talking about the victims being non-muslim because the press gets its facts mostly from the Saudi government, which is very keen to put a muslim-on-muslim violence spin to this whole thing in order to condemn it (they don't seem ready to condemn violence against infidels wholeheartedly).

It's not entirely clear to me whether you actually read the article I cited (your response could have been to either the article or what I said), and I'm not going to assume either way, but just in case you didn't, I highly recommend it.

[a_unique_person]

Saudi, in it's current form, couldn't exist without it's foreign workers.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Saudi, in it's current form, couldn't exist without it's foreign workers.

Very true and an unassailable, statement.
How this supports your point is ambiguous but what you have stated is absolutely true.

The same could be said about Germany, France & Luxembourg.
Where would the West be today without the Turks.
;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts


Very true and an unassailable, statement.
How this supports your point is ambiguous but what you have stated is absolutely true.

The same could be said about Germany, France & Luxembourg.
Where would the West be today without the Turks.
;)

By removing the foreign workers, you undermine the viability of the state. I also believe this to be a part of the reason for targets of suicide bombers in Israel. Some of the targets have been foreign workers. The bombings may have convinced many of them to return home. The Israeli economy is already struggling, due it's 'defense' committments.

[Ziggurat]

I find it strange that AUP is resisting the idea that the terrorists carried out the bombing because the victims were Christians rather than because it would destabilise the government. Aside from the column I mention above, the terrorists themselves have claimed that's why they did it. And the terrorists aren't ones to shy away from trying to explain their motives and goals.

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP60903

"After consultation, we decided it was appropriate to attack this place and destroy it, including the people who lived there, because it housed Americans and a large majority of Christians holding Lebanese citizenship."

I think the presence of Americans was exagerated, but it's quite clear that Lebanese Christians were on the target list. What exactly AUP's biases have against acknowleging that isn't clear to me.

[Crossbow]

Ziggy,

I suggest that you listen to this NPR report that was aired the other day about Al Qaeda because it details how they are not only targeting Americans and Israelis, but other Arab governments that they view as corrupt and/or leaning too much to the west. And the article goes on to discuss how their numbers are actually increasing.

Greater Danger with a Decentralized Al Qaeda
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1514423

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Ziggy,

I suggest that you listen to this NPR report that was aired the other day about Al Qaeda because it details how they are not only targeting Americans and Israelis, but other Arab governments that they view as corrupt and/or leaning too much to the west. And the article goes on to discuss how their numbers are actually increasing.


I have no doubt that they're opposed to the local arab governments - they have said as much in the second link they gave (though it's interesting to note that they also said that America is not only their top priority, but also that all the local governments will collapse once the US is defeated). But why didn't they strike directly at the government itself, if the goal was to destabilise the government? The target just didn't make sense until I found out that many of the victims were Lebanese Christian. And that's still something almost nobody is talking about, despite Al Quaeda claiming directly that this was a motive. I find resistance to this fact quite strange.

As for your link, I'm not set up to listen to audio over the internet right now, so unless you can find a transcript I'm not going to be able to check it out.

[Chaos]

@Ziggurat:
They do not have to strike directly at the government to destabilize it. All they have to do is make clear that the government cannot protect its own citizens - or in this case, the foundation their work force rests on.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Chaos
@Ziggurat:
They do not have to strike directly at the government to destabilize it. All they have to do is make clear that the government cannot protect its own citizens - or in this case, the foundation their work force rests on.

Do you not believe the terrorists when they directly state that they bombed that compound because it contained Lebanese Christians? When it comes to motives, the terrorists are not a secretive bunch, they're quite outspoken.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Do you not believe the terrorists when they directly state that they bombed that compound because it contained Lebanese Christians? When it comes to motives, the terrorists are not a secretive bunch, they're quite outspoken.

Well, if he'd admit THAT, he might have to admit terrorism has SOMETHING to do with a war of islam against the infidels (chrsitians and jews, mostly) and is not "really" about something else, like a "reaction" to the mean ol' USA's "imperialism".

And that just CANNOT be true, now can it?