11 Gitmo recidivists on Saudi’s Most Wanted List
I know. You’re shocked, shocked:
A Saudi government spokesman says 11 of the Saudis on its recently issued most wanted list are former Guantanamo detainees.
Gen. Mansour al-Turki of the Saudi Interior Ministry told The Associated Press on Wednesday that among the 85 people listed by the government, 11 had been released from the U.S. detention facility in Cuba and passed through government-sponsored rehabilitation programs.
(link)
More at the Long War Journal.
Here’s a snippet of the “broad strata” mugs of most wanted Saudis:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- 11 Gitmo recidivists on Saudi’s Most Wanted List — But As For Me
- Rehabilitated jihadists « Right Minded Online
- Not one, but 11 Gitmo recidivists on Saudi’s Most Wanted List | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- GITMO Successes (Stories of New Beginnings) « Zipline Conservative
- F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.] » Blog Archive » Obama and the Herbert Hoover Republicans Propose Intergenerational Theft
- Uncle Sam not my uncle anymore « GOODNESS WORLD LIFE BLOG
- Obama Closing Gitmo (aka Guantanamo Prison) | Political Crave
- “Paradiso Guantánamo” and Beauty Queens… Much More Than Meets the Eye « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Indefinite Detention: Obama’s Problem with Gitmo Terrorists « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats libel 'Kill the Bill' crowd as racist, violent crackpots when 99.99% are patriots concerned with the evisceration of the ConstitutionLegal Insurrection
» Look Who Really Is Killing American Soldiers (Hint, Not Israel)Mudville Gazette
» Protests in DCDoug Ross @ Journal
» Best Photos from the 'Kill the Bill' Tea Party Rally in DCMudville Gazette
» Smell the excitement, feel the heatStop The ACLU
» Do the Dems Have the Votes for Obamacare?
We left Saudi Arabia AFTER Saddam was gone. What is your point?
Great. That is your objective. Now, tell me how you would have planned to kill the beast. How would you have found your root? What would have been your probability of success?
Are you really that stupid.
You asked:
“Why did we go into Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia, when it was primarily Saudi Arabians who perpertraited 9/11?”
I asked you to clarify your question:
“Since we were already “in” Saudi Arabia, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “go into.””
You clarified with:
“Invade. As we invaded Iraq.”
It’s pretty freaking clear that you weren’t stating the fact that you would have invaded Saudi Arabia. It’s obvious that you were clarify your question to me. You were merely asking me a question – NOT MAKING A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT.
Why are you so worried about answering this question?
Would you have invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11?
You really are stupid. Why would you key in on the word “immediately?”
Let me make this simple.
Let’s pretend that you were in charge of the US following 9/11 (not before 9/11 – after 9/11).
Now, would you have unilaterally withdrawn all US troops from the region?
I would have.
Wrong, the military containment of Saddam led to 9/11. Therefore, he had quite a bit to do with it.
And you’ve agreed with that.
The breakdown is caused you’re uninformed about the actual history of the area, inability (or unwillingness) to look up a map, and your lack of any planning/executive experience.
It’s as if you’re asking me a question about calculus while you barely understand algebra. Then, since the explanation is complicated you accuse me of not answering.
Wrong. I stated that I wouldn’t have done it.
I also stated that I would have pulled all the troops from the region (yes, that includes the Red Sea – something that should have been obvious to you.)
Now, IF YOU WERE PUT IN CHARGE AFTER 9/11, would you have withdrawn the troops from the region or would you have left them there to contain Saddam?
LOL. There you go again.
You specifically said the Red Sea, and did not mention the Gulf of Aqaba.
Had you mentioned the gulf of Aqaba I would have said the following -
Going overland from the Red Sea to Iraq, or from the Gulf of Aqaba to Iraq, requires going through Saudi Arabia, and/or Jordan.
There is no direct access to Iraq from either the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aqaba.
You didn’t address the following from Post #82. Updated to reflect your additional information.
You know the place where the majority of 9/11 terrorist, and the planner, are from, Saudi Arabia. A blockade on the Red Sea, and/or the Gulf of Aqaba, would not stop anything originating in Saudi Arabia, including terrorists, from getting into Iraq.
And, the question you will not answer -
Specifically, how does a blockade stop terrorists and any weapons of war, originating in Saudi Arabia, from getting into Iraq.
LOL. There you go again. If you won’t answer the question, you will ask another question.
Moreover, when you cut and pasted my Post you did not cut and paste all of it. Only mildly intellectually dishonest, but dishonest nonetheless.
For your benefit here is the rest of the post -
Did we, or didn’t we, leave Saudi Arabia? We agreed on this over twenty Posts ago.
Though I truly understand why you could’nt simply say, ‘yes that is true, we agree’. Because, it was in the form of a question. And, you don’t answer questions. And, it appears that you won’t even acknowledge facts either.
Good Grief. I have cut and pasted that post before. And, you have cut and pasted that post before. I am pretty sure we discussed it.
Of course, the bonus, as usual, is yet another new question.
As a response to 9/11 I would have invaded Saudi Arabia. I would do the same thing we did in Iraq. Identify, locate and kill the terroists and their sympathizers.
Probablity of success? 100% because failure is not an option.
So what??? What is your point?? There was a blockade in the RED SEA for over 12 years.
It’s just too bad that it doesn’t make sense to you.
Are you serious?
1. The question is clearly answered in the sentence which you quoted.
2. You then claim that we agreed on it.
BTW, why are you asking me this? The blockade existed due to concerns about overland supply routes to Iraq (through the port of Aqaba).
Please deny that it existed. Please.
No. We haven’t.
Addressing the newest statement.
This requires a fair amount a logic on your part. You asked me the following in Post #49
Why would ask me this question, if you did not already know that I would invade Saudi Arabia?
Spoon feeding you, Yes, I would have invaded Saudi Arabia After 9/11.
Thank you for answering.
I’m a bit surprised. I didn’t think you’d admit that. You must be quite a war hawk.
You had asked me if I would have invaded Saudi Arabia, and I asked what good it would have done. You hadn’t answered the question yet.
It might not be an selected option, but it sure is a possible outcome. Unless, of course, you don’t live in the real world.
Have you ever planned an operation of any type?
It’s as if you’re asking me a question about calculus while you barely understand algebra. Then, since the explanation is complicated you accuse me of not answering.
Overall, you seem upset that the US didn’t invade the country that you wanted it to invade.
It was necesssary to say ‘immediately’ because you did not understand that Saddam’s rehabiltation would have taken place after the first Gulf War. In fact, it was in response to your question in Post #79. Also, see Post #50.
Do you read your own Posts?
No. It wasn’t necessary. I understood it the first time you mentioned it.
But jumping back in time isn’t an option for a decision maker.
I assume that you wouldn’t have invaded Saudi Arabia until AFTER 9/11 so it’s stupid to claim that you would have jumped back in time to rehabilitate Saddam prior to your invasion.
Woo Hoo a new question, and it is fairly well written. Established a premise and asked a question based on it. Seems my critique of you has had it’s benefits.
No. I would not have withdrawn our troops from the region after 9/11. I would need them to invade Saudi Arabia.
A different question. I will ask and answer it, and then hopefully you will answer it, too.
Let’s pretend that you were in charge of the US following the first Gulf War (not before the first Gulf War – after the first Gulf War).
Now, would you have unilaterally withdrawn all US troops from the region after the first Gulf War was over?
Everywhere except Kuwait and maybe the UAE. This is conditioned on Saddam’s succesful rehablitation. Eventhough he may have been rehabilitated, he still needed watching.
Your turn.
Did you really want the US to do this after 9/11? Or did you start thinking this way after you watched Michael Moore’s movie?
Be honest.
Are you asking if I would have unilaterally withdrawn all US troops from the region after the first Gulf War was over predicated upon Saddam’s successful rehabilitation?
Here’s a question for you.
Do you have a dial-up internet connection?
Good Grief.
Then the British and French are connected to 9/11 because there would have been no Saddam if not for Sykes-Pycotte. Your logic suggesting any linearity to 9/11 involves countless examples of culpability.
NO. I reject that theory.
The responsibility for carrying out, the actual act, of 9/11 was done by Osama Bin Laden and at least 15 Saudi Arabians. Whatever their stated reason for doing so, it could have been because they wanted more bowling alleys. Bowling alleys have no culpability in 9/11.
Of my Posts #82 though #94 you addressed a total of 6. Note, I said, addressed, not answered. In fact there were several new questions. For you this is nothing new.
I was really looking forward to you answering Post #86. You did not.
You said in Post #74
I said in Post #86, actually it was more of challenge to your integrity and ability to tell the truth.
Not only did you not answer the question. You responded with a question.
So go ahead, cut and paste where and what you said as an answer to the original question. Give me the numbered Post where your answer exists.
If you answered it many, many times the post should be easy to find to cut and paste.
The only time you ever answered the question was just now, in Post #86.
You have misrepresented the truth.
Whatever. Bowling alleys were never cited as anyone’s reason for supporting the act. Our military presence in the region was. Saddam was the reason we had a military presence in the region.
Therefore, I reject any notion that Saddam wasn’t a major factor in 9/11.
Blame the British and French if you want, but the fact remains that no necessary policy decisions involved the British or the French after 9/11.
However, major policy decisions need to be made about Saddam after 9/11. Policy needed to be made regarding containment. Keep it? Withdrawal the military? Invade Iraq?
Even if you had decided to invade Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t relieve you of making a decision with respect to Saddam.
I have clearly stated throughout this entire thread that I would have pulled all military from the region.
That answered your question many many times. How could I invade a country without using the military?
Unless you were leaving me the option of some sort of cultural invasion.
Yeah that map thing is a tough one, and goes to your Red Sea – then mentioning the Gulf of Aqaba, . . . afterwards. Then again, if you looked at a map you would know, Iraq has no access to either body of water. As I said then, what has a blockade got to do with anything, especially regarding MM’s Post?
Yep, just one of your many tangents unrelated to MM’s Post.
LOL.
When did you see my resume to know exactly what my experience is, or isn’t?
LMAO
Complicated answer? You’ve got to be kidding me. It was you who said, answer A or B. My answers to your questions have to be A or B. But, your answers, when you do answer, are complicated? You make me laugh.
Ha ha. You are clearly the one that wants to be spoon fed.
Are you attempting to claim that there was no blockade of Iraq in the Red Sea?
From the NYT
August 17, 1990
You could have just Googled that and saved yourself the embarrassment.
BTW, notice that the New York Times considers the Gulf of Aqaba to be included as part of the Red Sea.
You really need to relinquish this one. I am knowledgeable about the blockade in the Red Sea. I was very involved with part of it.
Yes, but you never said when you would withdraw them. This goes to my suggesting a more cogent question, and even an answer, on your part.
Be patient, I suggested some time ago that we go through this one by one, and I answered your question from Post #99 and it appears in Post #118.
After 9/11. Please acknowledge my answer!
MY question from Post #99? Help me out here. What was my question from #99?
Are you asking if I would have unilaterally withdrawn all US troops from the region after the first Gulf War was over predicated upon Saddam’s successful rehabilitation?
More useful information about the blockade in the Red Sea.
According to Global Security the first blockade intercept was in the Red Sea.
And in 1995,
Finally,
LOL. There you go again.
You did not mention the Gulf of Aqaba, you mentioned the Red Sea. Had you mentioned the Gulf of Aqaba, I would have said the following.
Very well, going overland from the Red Sea to Iraq, or going overland from the Gulf of Aqaba, to Iraq requires going through Saudi Arabia and/or Jordan.
There is no direct access from Iraq to either the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aqaba. At some point you have to go overland.
Of course, you did not address this from the post #82.
You know the place where the majority of 9/11 terrorist, and the planner, are from. A blockade on the Red Sea would not stop anything originating in Saudi Arabia, including terrorists, from getting into Iraq.
Do you agree?
You’ve ruined your credibility. I will not answer any more of your sophomoric questions.
My theory is that you watched Michael Moore’s movie and then attempted to back-justify your belief that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.
I on the other hand was advocating the unilateral withdrawal from the region prior to March 2003.
If you had any credibility then I would debate the pro’s and con’s of invading Saudi Arabia. Persoanlly, I think the consequences would have been much worse than invading Iraq.
The point is why did you mention it? Yes, we had our military in the region and the blockade of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba were part of it. So what? We had a military in the region and their prescence in the UAE was part of it, too. So What?
And, of course it does not make sense. As I have said before, a blockade does not stop the Saudi Arabian terrorists from going into Iraq. Stop for a moment and look at the title of MM’s Post, “11 Gitmo recidivists on Saudi’s Most Wanted List”.
If it doesn’t make sense to me, it is because you haven’t explained how a blockade stops Saudi terrorist from getting into Iraq. How?
Ooops, sorry that was a question, and you do not answer questions.
LOL. There you go again. Responding to a question with a question.
It speaks to the effectiveness of a blockade, when terrorists and materials originate in Saudi Arabia.
Fine. There was a blockade.
Will you now answer the following?
Specifically, how does a blockade stop terrorists and any weapons of war, originating in Saudi Arabia, from getting into Iraq?
Since, you have difficulty with answers, I will do it for you?
It doesn’t. A blockade is ineffective from stopping terrorists and materials originating in Saudi Arabia from getting into Iraq.
.
Not only do you not answer questions, answer questions with questions, misrepresent the truth, but now you are forgetting things.
See if this rings a bell, “kill the beast from the root.” There were several posts on this issue. Sit down, collect your thoughts, . . . and re-read your own posts.
Yep, we discussed it.
Unlike you, I answer every question, often including references to past posts, and/or the string of posts where I repeatedly answered the question.
Nope. Not a war hawk, however it might be defined.
I originally answered that question in Post #50, and later again in another Post where I cut and pasted my answer from Post #50.
If you want the answer to this question, go back and read it.
I have never planned a military operation.
That is not an answer. It is a statement. It isn’t even an acknowledgement of a question, at least of any question I have asked you.
No. Just curious as to why. That is why I asked the question in Post #33. You know the question that took you over 50 posts to answer. The question that you said you answered multiple and didn’t.
Then why did you ask the following in Post#79?
Re-read post #91.
No one is jumping back and forth. I addressed this issue in my Post #90 referencing your Post #78.
Re-read both posts
One more time. These are two separate events from the past. These two separate events, in a continuum, that have thier own beginning and questions.
There was Saddam and the first Gulf War.
There was 9/11.
Yes, I would have invaded Saudi Arabia After 9/11. That is where the terrorists and their ideology began.
Which Michael Moore movie? Remember, we discussed how to ask a question.
LOL. There you go again. Answering a question with a question.
No. Set any conditions you want.
I will ask the question again.
Now, would you have unilaterally withdrawn all US troops from the region after the first Gulf War was over?
LOL
No.
Yes, Saddam was the reason we had a military prescence in the region.
Having our military in Saudi Arabia was the reason, just the reason or some would say excuse, Osama Bin Laden used to justify the attacks of 9/11. Saddam had no operational input into 9/11.
Not blaming the British or French. Making an analogy for the continuum of events that led to a following act or event. A line could certainly be drawn to connect them, yet that does not mean there was causality. The British and French caused Saddam, and Saddam caused, Osama to act, does not make the British and French guilty for what Osam did. Nor does it make Saddam guilty for what Osama did.
Why? Saddam had no operational authority over 9/11. He supplied no material or funding for the operation. There were no Iraqis acting on his authority. Yep, Saddam’s major input into 9/11 was giving Osama an excuse to attack us.
Saddam was already under containment. We can discuss the effectiveness of that containment, but he was not a threat to invade Kuwait, or any of his neighbors, again.
Yes, keep the containment. But, only from Kuwait. Which is I have said, should have been done after the first gulf war. (See my Post #118.)
Invade Iraq because of 9/11? No.
The decision with respect to Saddam has been made through 9/11. Containment. The decision after 9/11, continue containmet. 9/11 changes nothing with repect to Saddam.
I am Old School. Hit the guy who hit you, not anyone else. Yep, said this in Post #50.
So what? What is your point?
Or are you simply trying to save face after getting crushed about the Red Sea blockade?
Pulling the military out does not mean you can’t send them back. So, that is not an answer to, ‘would you invade Saudi Arabia.’
NO. No it doesn’t answer the question. We had a military prescence in Europe during the first World War. We withdrew our military at the end of that conflict. Guess what? We had to send them back for WWII. So, withdrawing the military does not preclude sending them back for another fight.
LOL.
No. My question was HOW WILL YOU KILL THE BEAST.
Yes, you’ve told me that you would kill the beast. I got that loud and clear.
I was asking something completely CRAZY…like…you know… HOW?
I know that people like you don’t like such pesky little details, but try to think about it for awhile.
What type of operation have you planned?
Yes, and the two are quite related.
See my Post #139
OH, and if you will answer the questions.
Yes and the condition I set is that I do it after 9/11.
To be honest, based on what I would have known at the time, I don’t know if I would have withdrawn from the region during the 1990s (I’d have to think about that some more). And while, I think my strategy would have materially differed from Clinton’s it might not have prevented 9/11 – I’d love to claim that it would have, but I’m being honest.
Great. I acknowledge that you answered the question 11 posts later by finally admitting it. THANKS!
So what? I never claimed he did.
There is no embarrassment, except on your part. I never said there was no blocakde. I asked about the terrorists originating in Saudi Arabia, and how does a blockade stop them from going to Iraq? Implicit in my question is that I accept that there was a blockade.
You never answered the question, again.
OK, fine.
Good for you. Now answer the question.
[Note: In your haste to feel good about yourself, not waiting for my answer which appears in Post #139, we have unfortunately talked past one another. Hence, why I suggested we take it one post at a time back in Post #43.]
I will not relinquish getting you to answer the question.
Actually, no. Osama Bin Laden (and those that supported him) had been railing about the issue for years. He was deported and had his citizenship revoked because of this issue. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that it wasn’t something he really cared about. Otherwise you’ll start to sound like a real wacko. (Up until know you merely seem uninformed, inexperienced, and naive.)
Are you really that stupid? I’m obviously not asking about Roger and Me.
You answered a question.
?
Do your own research. I have repeatedly cut and pasted, and referenced posts.
Your confusion and laziness is only exceeded by your inability to answer questions.
There should be. I schooled you on geography and history.
Then you started asking some stupid, face-saving question about Saudi terrorist getting into Iraq overland.
That is crap.
BTW, what the heck is “under containment?”
Readers of these comments think you are an idiot. Writing this stuff makes you sound like a pompous idiot.
Not only are your questions stupid, but they are poorly written.
LOL. You are just too funny.
You are making a decision based on a theory, what you think, instead of on facts, and you question my credibility.
Good for you advocating the withdrawal of troops in 2003.
Do you knpw what I was advocating in 2003? 2001? 1990?
Sure you do, you will no doubt think of something, or make it up in your head, and then make a decision about what you do not know.
Good. I do not want to debate the pros and cons of invading Saudi Arabia.
Are you trying to justify the reason for stating that you would have withdrawn US troops from the region AND then sent them back to invade Saudi Arabia?
For the record, that’s stupid. I never would have considered clarifying my position. For me, pulling troops from a region means that I wouldn’t invade.
I’ve proven my ability to discuss facts, and you know it.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised you would even bring this up.
Prior to March 2003.
LOL.
True to form, you still haven’t answered the question.
In 1990??
Before the first Gulf War?
I have know idea what you were advocating in 1990? Do tell.
I’m not answering your stupid, face-saving question.
Next you’ll be demanding that I admit that a Pentagon as five sides. It’s stupid and doesn’t matter.
Of course you don’t.
You’re like an algebra level student claiming that a physicist isn’t answering your question simply because you don’t understand the calculus being used in the answer.
The first time I asked you about Iraq’s access to the Red Sea, and what difference did it make because you will have to go overland, and then anything originating in Saudi Arabia would not be affected by the blockade was in Post #82. So it is not about me saving face, or getting crushed, it is about you not answering questions from 90 plus posts ago.
Yep, calculus algebra whatever.
Why would want me to do your research?
Your statement -
My theory is that you watched Michael Moore’s movie and then attempted to back-justify your belief that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.
What are the facts in that statement?
I see speculation about a theory but no facts.
No. Just stated an example of when we pulled our troops, and when we had to send them back.
Withdrawal, does mean you don’t send them back if you have to. Two separate and distinct acts. Withdraw. Invade.
I am getting used to you not clarifying your position.
Get some of the people who are reading this to explain it to you.
.
Exactly my point. Ask what I was thinking or advocating before you assign, make assumptions or guess what my positin is, or is not.
No theories. Just the facts.
You’re right. That one statement contained no facts.
That’s not your point.
But go ahead, tell me what you were advocating in those years which included 1990. Unless you suddenly don’t want to tell me.
Of course I COULD have answered. I just didn’t.
I already told you that I refuse to answer you’re stupid questions.
You know exactly which Michael Moore movie I was referencing. EVERYONE knows exactly what Michael Moore movie I was referencing.
They certainly are.
And you’d be considered a brilliant military strategist for advocating a plan of…
“Withdraw. Invade.”
Remember that I stated prior to March of 2003.
I’m really hoping you tell me the answer.
What were you advocating in 2003? 2001? and 1990?
Why did you need to ask me this? Didn’t you know? Couldn’t you have researched this on your own?
Good for you. I never expected such an acknowledgement from you. Thank you.
You were doing so well beginning with Post #183.
Yet there you go again. Slicing, dicing, and avoiding all of the post. Try addressing the second part. And remember, it was not face saving because I had asked it a long long long time ago.
The entire quote that you sliced, diced and the question you keep avoiding.
The first time I asked you about Iraq’s access to the Red Sea, and what difference did it make because you will have to go overland, and then anything originating in Saudi Arabia would not be affected by the blockade was in Post #82. So it is not about me saving face, or getting crushed, it is about you not answering questions from 90 plus posts ago.
I’ve been completely honest from the start of this debate. Your expectations are obviously not well founded.
Why did you ask me this?
This issue is irrelevant.
The example I gave when establishing was from the end of WWI to the beginning of WWII, with reference to Europe. Implicit in that example is that there was time between the two wars.
Do you suffer from ADHD, or something?
So, when would you have withdrawn and when would you have invaded? How much time was between?