Explosions rock Saudi Arabian capital

4th explosion just happened apparently.

 

Just to clarify the headline -- the explosions were in an apartment compound that houses Americans who work for companies in Riyadh. Powell is expected to show up there tomorrow. At least 80 people hurt; no word yet on deaths or who/what caused this.

 

I saw a report on a Chinese-language news channel here in Taiwan saying that at least 10 Americans were killed and 2 Saudi nationals. They indicated that they expect the death toll to increase.

 

29 dead, including at least seven Americans. All attaacks were apparently carried out by suicide bombers.

I'm surprised that this isn't a bigger story here. Apparently, Al Qaeda has carried out a significant attack on Americans and Western interests in a heavily fortified area, in a country that is allegedly our ally. What does it all mean to US / Saudi relations? How long will US companies allow expats and families to stay in Riyadh if they can't be protected?

 

My thoughts;

I'd like to call for a moratorium on "explosions rock" or "Al-Queda rocks" headlines. They don't "rock". They suck. Stop slandering good "rockers".

Also, #2 - why the heck do they build tall apartment towers in the desert? Admittedly, I've never been there, but I would guess there's a lot of space for sprawling 2-story apartment complexes - which would minimize the # of people killed per bomb.

I mean, this is getting commonplace over there again. For a long time, a few carbombs here and there and the Saudis blamed western bootleggers/alcohol runners. I guess when the casualties hit double-digits they admit its actually anti-western terrorists.

 

The State Dept made a statement that over 90 people were dead, but then contradicted themselves by reiterating the 29 confirmed dead total.

If the death toll tops 100, then will people start paying attention?

 

So, why did we attack Iraq again?

Oh yea, because they're terrorists.

Nothing's changed.

 

Iraq issue aside, the war on terror is a marathon. I hope the West has the stomach for it. White flags won't protect us, that much is certain.

 

What Ben said. The campaign in Iraq was just one component, albeit a controversial and very well-publicized one, of the war on terror. The war on terror is being fought as we speak, by massive land forces in Iraq (well that part of it juts got done being fought), by special forces and elite infantry troops in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, the former USSR, and who knows where else, and by cops, both American and foreign, in Pakistan, Germany, Brazil and dozens of other countries, including the US. The war on terror is not a conventional war--it is not World War 2, except perhaps in the obvious morality of its cause. There will be few, if any, El Alameins, Normandies, or Guadacanals. There have been, and will continue to be, anti-terrorism actions taken on every scale from FBI agents and Italian cops raiding sketchy apartments in Rome, to massive ground forces with hundreds of tanks rolling across the desert to topple terrorist-supporting dictators. There will be no distinct V-T day, but there will be a day when every dictator who supports terrorism has been toppled, and from there it will only be a matter of time before the individual terror cells dry up.

 

When I woke up this morning my roomate reminded me that today is Mohammed's birthday...I then thought something's probably going to happen today...then I turned on the tv.


Yalpstel,

Please explain how Iraq=terrorism. Iraq, or no Iraq, we're stuck with this.

 

That's what I'd like to know!
Start here.

 

Evidently our president is confused by the term "homicide bomber"

The president called the bombings "despicable acts committed by killers whose only faith is hate." The crowd of 7,000 at the Indiana State Fairgrounds roared its approval when he said, "The United States will find the killers, and they will learn the meaning of American justice."

Aren't the "killers" spread out over several blocks right now? Or is he getting all metaphorical on us?

 

I think he's referring to the fact that the people who organize these attacks are almost never the ones to carry them out. Those "killers" are still on the loose, and ready to prepare more kids to blow themselves up.

 

My online dictionary is quite specific that a killer is "the one who kills". The guy who orders the killing, but doesn't actively do it, would not be a "killer". Semantics, I know.

But according the extended killer logic, GWB or Rummy killed loads of Iraqis, cuz they ordered the war. Are they killers too? What about us taxpayers who financed the war?

 

You should consult with a penal code one of these days.

 

Was it a heavily fortified area? I seem to remember someone saying the guards weren't even armed.

 

WMD they had them, and they deal with terrorists that's why

 

I finally had a chance to talk to my wife about this tonite (busy life right now). She used to work in Saudi, for one of the princesses. She was in SA for about 7 months of her 2 years with her. (The princess traveled alot to her half dozen homes around the world.) From what she'd told me about life there, when I heard about this, I was pretty sure that the killers had to have some level of cooperation with someone (maybe not that high up on the food chain) in the security services. SA is not exactly a free country.

My wife confirmed that. She thinks it's likely that some in the royal family (you have to remember, there, that's hundreds of people) were in on it, or at least knew about it and looked the other way. And she's agreed with my first reaction...at the absolute very least, someone in an official capacity could have stopped this but didn't.

 

I actually think that the iraq war fits in a different group. When they say war on terrorism i hear a war on international non-state org. I think the war in iraq is a different war, one against brutal despots for human rights reason among others. Not to say one is right and one is wrong or that the two don't intersect (countries with conditions like those in iraq are petri dishes for resentment which could lead to terrorism). I think the bombings illustrate the differences.

 

Saudi Arabia is certainly a country we need to deal with in the near future.

 

If those guards were not armed, then you have to ask yourself why they were not armed. If someone in the Saudi goverment pushed that they should not be armed because Saudi's would protect the complexs. Then it was a set up because those guys went right in, and the person or persons who did not want them armed was in on it.

He should be dealt with, he probably has some kind of cover story to explain it all. It has to be a lie whether it can be proved a lie or not is a seperate issue.

Does not change the fact that him, and the ones close to him should be dealt with. Saudi don't do it we have to do it.

 

I heard that atleast one of the scenes had gunfire before the bombs went off. They were saying that the attacker shot his way in, left the bomb and then shot his way out and escaped.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47157-2003May12.html

"In Cordoba, the attackers shot their way past the compound gate, detonated a car bomb and then shot their way out of the premises, the Saudi source said. The Cordoba compound was believed to house a large number of Britons because a British school is on the grounds. In Al Hamra, some of the attackers were thought to still be on the grounds early today as Saudi security forces surrounded the compound, he said. There were continuing reports of gunfire in Riyadh this morning."

 

Saudi Arabia should have been dealt with after 9/11


Hopefully this is a chance for the west to get back together and focus on the war on terror. You cannot fight Muslim extremism without France, Germany or Russia, regardless of the dispute over Iraq