Wednesday, May 14, 2003
The Washington Post reports on the Saudi Arabian bombing today. An excerpt:
'While Monday's car-bombings were an assault on Western, particularly American, residents of Saudi Arabia, they also appeared to be a direct threat to the country's royal family, which rules an increasingly restive population. "This was an attack on the royal family," said one Saudi official. "That is the harsh reality."'
'Despite the Saudi actions, there have been a number of attempted attacks believed to be the work of Qaeda. Operatives have planned bombings at the Tabouk air base, the Ras Tanurah oil facility and the ministries of Interior and Defense, officials said. Arrested militants linked to al Qaeda also explored the possibility of using silencer-equipped weapons to kill Americans at close range in public places, Saudi officials said.'
This article talks about various attempts by al Qaeda cells to attack targets in Saudi Arabia, but states that these targets were well-defended. I don't have the Atlantic Monthly article in front of me, but one of the main contentions made by the author of that article is that a number of sites in Saudi Arabia are not defended well -- I don't know if the sites mentioned here are the same ones. Further down in the story we have a brief reminder of the scope of recent terrorist attacks (say, within the last year):
'The explosions were similar to other bombings in Tunisia, Pakistan and Indonesia, as well as deadly shootings in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Jordan and the Philippines, all of which have been linked to al Qaeda or local allies.'
Andrew 12:00 PM : |
New York Times
The New Yorker
The Atlantic Monthly
Bloggers we like:
Baseball on Blake Street
Non Tibi Spiro
Bloggers you already know: