The U.S. has indefinitely pulled out of its embassy in Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. Embassy will close its offices to review security procedures on Saturday, while embassy officials said terrorists are close to launching an attack in the desert kingdom.The embassy in the capital of Riyadh (search) and the U.S. Consulates General in Jeddah (search) and Dhahran (search) will be closed, according to a warden message issued by the embassy on Friday.
“The embassy continues to receive credible information that terrorists in Saudi Arabia have moved from the planning to operational phase of planned attacks in the kingdom,” stated the message. “The embassy strongly urges all American citizens in the kingdom to be especially vigilant when in any area that is perceived to be American or Western.”
They will then advise the American community when the review is completed and when normal operations will resume.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul issued a warning to journalists in Afghanistan on Friday.
“The United States Embassy in Kabul has received credible information that Taliban (search) forces are actively searching for American journalists to take hostage for use as leverage for the release of Taliban currently under United States control,” the embassy statement said. “American journalists in Afghanistan are urged to take immediate steps to increase their security posture in light of these threats.”
It’s about damn time that we got our people out of the embassy in Saudi Arabia. Though I know that this won’t be a permanent closing, at least it will get Americans out of harms way for a while.
Their government is controlled by Islamic fundamentalism (, many of the people are sympathetic to it, and many reports and intelligence have indicated that Saudi Arabia is the main financier of the Palestinian terrorist group purposefully targets innocent women and children., Saudi Arabia is considering developing nuclear weapons, etc.
I call for the full removal of the government of Saudi Arabia and the elimination of their support for terrorist groups.
“I call for the full removal of the government of Saudi Arabia and the elimination of their support for terrorist groups.”
Me too… But just whom would you support to replace them??? At least in Iran there are scores of organized resistance groups, and a booming young pro-American demographic. (same with Iraq)
But Saudi Arabia??? Who will run the place?? In your lexicon, “royal family” might be a four letter word, but what about “Wahhabi Clerics?” isnt that one too?
Comment by 11/7/2003 @ 7:13 pm
I didnt mean to imply that Iraq’s 18-24 generation was exactly “pro-American” whoops, sorry
Comment by 11/7/2003 @ 7:15 pm
Well yes Aaron, that certainly is a problem (it is a problem with Iraq as well). I firmly believe that Islam is incompatible with freedom, and that these Middle Eastern states will only begin to be free when they accept reason as primary (or in my view, the only means to knowledge) and advocate a complete separation of church and state. Until then, it seems that the conditions necessary for full freedom to arise in the Middle East will not be produced.
I believe that we should briefly occupy these territories until they can handle security on their own, and hand them the U.S. Constitution for the manual to creating their own government. However, such an action would be branded “ethnocentric.” Who’s to say that the free government of America (well, at least semi-free) is better than the tyranny of savages? the multiculturalists and relativists would say. Since such an attitude is prevalent today, I think it is quite a difficulty to establish free nations in the Middle East (especially considering that we do not live in a free nation ourselves).
However, this does not change the fact that the current governemnt of Saudi Arabia (and Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) represent a threat to our country, and therefore must be eliminated.
Comment by 11/10/2003 @ 1:24 pm
HAND WHOM the CONSTITUTION??? You still have not made it clear which individuals or groups you would have in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Musharraff, bastard that he is, is STILL the most secularized prominent leader in Pakistan. (Fun fact.. did you know that he was the first Paki leader to wear the capitalist style suits in public??)
17,000 royal princes, bastards that many of them are, are still the most secular aspect of SA …
be careful what you wish for Steve, it just might happen.
Comment by 11/11/2003 @ 2:48 pm
Islam isn’t any less compatible with freedom than Christianity, the dominant religion in our “semi-free” country. During the Dark Ages, for example, Christianity was imposed in a fundamentalist way that required theocracy and denied individual rights. But at the same time, Islamic society, especially in Spain, was thriving, freer, and theocratic only in name. Modern Islam has deviated from this, but I contend that this is less an issue of their religion and more one of culture and circumstance. European betrayals of Middle Eastern populace, such as the Syces-Picot treaty post WWI, or American support of hated regimes like the House of Saud, have created resentment toward western ideals and allowed freedom-hating fundamentalists to take power. Nonetheless, in the same way that the Dark Ages don’t mean Christianity is incompatible with freedom and separation of Church and State, modern Islamic society doesn’t mean the religion itself is incompatible with individual rights. You’re basing this conclusion on flawed reasoning.
Now, if you did a little research on Islam, you’d see that its moral and theological principles don’t differ much from Christianity (the major difference is the status of Jesus and Mohammed, which has no bearing on political though), and that there is a liberal (in the classic sense) movement within Islam, especially among the Iranian reformers you mention. You think those people aren’t Muslims? They are, they just understand, as did the Christians of the Renaissance, that religion isn’t incompatible with freedom. Read up on this stuff before you make such sweeping generalizations.
Comment by CZ 11/13/2003 @ 7:30 pm
“Now, if you did a little research on Islam, you’d see that its moral and theological principles don’t differ much from Christianity “CZ
Come now… Compare, for instance, “render that unto Caesar…” with the Islamic concept of UNMAH,
Comment by 11/16/2003 @ 7:25 pm
CZ,
Do not make the mistake of thinking that I support every action by the U.S. blindly. If you read anything on this blog with care, you would find the exact opposite to be true. I staunchly oppose the past foreign policy of the United States. I staunchly oppose U.S. recognition of ANY dictatorship as a legitimate state, and therefore, oppose ANY negotiation, appeasement, or relations with dictatorship states.
As I have written before, the U.S. foreign policy of the past was widely based on the philosophy of pragmatism, which states that there is no truth other than what “works” for the moment. Based on this view, the U.S. engaged in such actions as supporting the House of Saud, supporting Iraq and Saddamn Hussein in order to block the advance of Iraq, supporting Afghanistan and the Taliban in order to block the advance of Soviet Russia, the list goes on and on.
As to the idea of freedom and Islam being compatible, it is my firm belief that freedom and the complete practice of Islam can not exist together. Islam advocates the sacrifice of oneself to others, the subordination of one’s judgment to God, and the superiority of the collective to the individual. Only when these views, mysticism, altruism, and collectivism, decrease in the Middle East will they beging to see freedom. The reason why America became as free as it is was because of the fact that the Founding Fathers, riding on the coattails of the Enlightenment, advocated the use of reason and the natural rights of every individual to freedom. Consult your history books, the Founding Fathers were largely deists, quite different than being Christians. (in a similar vein, look at the rise of mysticism, collectivism, and altruism in our country and see the corresponding consequences, such as members of the religous right trying to force their moral and religious views on us all).
Comment by 11/17/2003 @ 1:35 pm
Freedom and the complete practice of most religions can’t coexist, I agree. But I don’t think Islam is any better or worse than, say, Christianity, when practiced in the moderate way that many Americans practice these religions. So I agree with you, but don’t demonize Islam in general - it’s religious fundamentalism, Christian, Muslim, etc., that’s the ideological enemy here, not one specific religion. The Islamic fundamentalists who resort to violence should be dealt with accordingly, in the name of self-defense and protecting the innocent.
Comment by CZ 11/17/2003 @ 2:24 pm