A country that sided with Iraq in Gulf War I is “our most reliable Arab ally”? What of Oman, or Qatar, or Bahrain? They don’t have the sexy Hashemite royal trappings, but they’ve all been more reliably pro-U.S. than Jordan.
Well, it seems semi-moot now (if the guys they’ve arrested are indeed the guys who did it), but I don’t understand where you’re coming from.
Let’s say they’re Egyptians, Saudis, or even Jordanians. We try ‘em, convict ‘em, and execute ‘em. So what? Why does it have to become any more complicated than that?
Who said anything about cutting off Egyptian aid (which, for the record, I think is an idea worth considering in the long term, but not in response to the sniper incident). So what if he were a Saudi? 15 of the 19, and all that, and Bush still has the prince out to the ranch every other weekend. I think that regime needs to go, sooner rather than later, but I don’t see the sniper situation as particularly complicating that relationship any more than it is already. What if he were Jordanian? Again, who cares? We’d treat him as a random terrorist. It our relationship with Jordan would be much the same as it is now (although I disagree with your characterization of Jordan as a reliable ally — but that’s another issue).
Myself, I wanted the guy to be a clear al-Quaeda. Iraq would have been my first choice, but Saudi Arabia would have been a close second. It wouldn’t have been enough to put the Bush Administration into a box where it’s options for dealing with the Kingdom were meaningfully constrained (if 15 of 19 weren’t, nothing would be), but it would remind a public with a short attention span that certain countries need to be kept an eye on.
They arrested two guys this morning, one an ex-Army mechanic and the other his 17 year old step son. From what I caught on the news before I left for work, they’re looking pretty good as the “sniper team”.
I sure as hell hope so.
The adult’s last name was reported as Mohammed. While that in itself means little, it does make you wonder if he won’t end up being what Walter mentions above; a home grown Al Qaeda sympathizing nutsack.
‘So what does a bombing two decades ago in London have to do with a sniper today in the Washington area?’
Absolutely nothing! If you want to post about the peace process and the IRA’s nearly eight year ceasefire, go ahead, but please, spare us the weak comparisons!
I’ve often that, reading and understanding are two very different things.
Go back and look at what he wrote again. His example had absolutly nothing to do with (as you put it) ” the peace process and the IRA’s nearly eight year ceasefire”.
It was an illustration thats all. No “comparison” is really being made here.
I read and understand quite a bit. I just feel that this particular “illustration” is not useful or illuminating in this situation. Particularly with all that has happened in the North of Ireland in the past week. Sorry if I’m a bit “touchy!”
A country that sided with Iraq in Gulf War I is “our most reliable Arab ally”? What of Oman, or Qatar, or Bahrain? They don’t have the sexy Hashemite royal trappings, but they’ve all been more reliably pro-U.S. than Jordan.
“let us hope the killers are homegrown nutjobs, and not Islamist terrorists.”
We might have it both ways, with the shooters being homegrown nutjob Islamic terrorists. Or at least Islamic sympathizers.
Well, it seems semi-moot now (if the guys they’ve arrested are indeed the guys who did it), but I don’t understand where you’re coming from.
Let’s say they’re Egyptians, Saudis, or even Jordanians. We try ‘em, convict ‘em, and execute ‘em. So what? Why does it have to become any more complicated than that?
Who said anything about cutting off Egyptian aid (which, for the record, I think is an idea worth considering in the long term, but not in response to the sniper incident). So what if he were a Saudi? 15 of the 19, and all that, and Bush still has the prince out to the ranch every other weekend. I think that regime needs to go, sooner rather than later, but I don’t see the sniper situation as particularly complicating that relationship any more than it is already. What if he were Jordanian? Again, who cares? We’d treat him as a random terrorist. It our relationship with Jordan would be much the same as it is now (although I disagree with your characterization of Jordan as a reliable ally — but that’s another issue).
Myself, I wanted the guy to be a clear al-Quaeda. Iraq would have been my first choice, but Saudi Arabia would have been a close second. It wouldn’t have been enough to put the Bush Administration into a box where it’s options for dealing with the Kingdom were meaningfully constrained (if 15 of 19 weren’t, nothing would be), but it would remind a public with a short attention span that certain countries need to be kept an eye on.
They arrested two guys this morning, one an ex-Army mechanic and the other his 17 year old step son. From what I caught on the news before I left for work, they’re looking pretty good as the “sniper team”.
I sure as hell hope so.
The adult’s last name was reported as Mohammed. While that in itself means little, it does make you wonder if he won’t end up being what Walter mentions above; a home grown Al Qaeda sympathizing nutsack.
‘So what does a bombing two decades ago in London have to do with a sniper today in the Washington area?’
Absolutely nothing! If you want to post about the peace process and the IRA’s nearly eight year ceasefire, go ahead, but please, spare us the weak comparisons!
To O’McSomething…..
I’ve often that, reading and understanding are two very different things.
Go back and look at what he wrote again. His example had absolutly nothing to do with (as you put it) ” the peace process and the IRA’s nearly eight year ceasefire”.
It was an illustration thats all. No “comparison” is really being made here.
I read and understand quite a bit. I just feel that this particular “illustration” is not useful or illuminating in this situation. Particularly with all that has happened in the North of Ireland in the past week. Sorry if I’m a bit “touchy!”
We