No one should allow himself to be confused by this threat into taking at face value, or as anything other than one more propaganda stunt, the kind that only convinced interfaith-healing racketeers could at this point fall for, the "Interfaith" business of King Abdullah and his daggers-and-dishdasha family members and supporters, doing their tribal dances, wearing those sneers of cold command.

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2008 5:34 PM

I think we need to have a true diealogue with these guys in the only language they really understand.

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at July 28, 2008 5:36 PM

Hugh has it right. This is great PR for Abdullah.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 28, 2008 6:12 PM

Hugh and Cornelius--

I can see where you're coming from; this does give the Saudis something to point to and say, "See, they're not like us."

But the Saudis have been actively supporting global jihad on many fronts for years, and that's never been good enough for Al-Qaeda, which has continued to see the regime as corrupt and illegitimate. Al-Qaeda has even lashed out against Hamas when they've appeared too soft, and there have been reports this week of fighting in Gaza between Hamas and an Al-Qaeda backed group.

That's why I see this reaction by Al-Qaeda to Abdullah's "dialogue" in Spain as more of the same, rather than an act of shrewdness in letting Abdullah play "good cop" to their "bad cop" in advancing Islam: It's never been acceptable to them before, because there's no jihad like fast jihad.

I could be wrong, but that was my reasoning when I posted it.

Posted by: MarisolJW at July 28, 2008 6:34 PM

Hahaha!

Not that there ever was one "interfaith dialogue"- All Abdullah was doing is make his call to da'awa, to call the recalcitrant infidels to accept islam. All he tried to do was try to muzzle the pesky kuffars about their misconceived ideas about freedom of speech and Muhammad- cartoons, and still, these filthy kuffars didn't submit fully and arrogantly refuse to respect the religion of the profit, oh Allah, we will make great slaughter in the land to avenge the messenger and restore his honor, inshallah!

Along comes AQ and 'misunderstands' Abdullahs endeavors?

Games Muslims play...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 28, 2008 6:42 PM

Laughing at the early, sneering, bared-fangs media reference at "escape from a US prison." Umm, dhimmi, it's an Afghan prison.

As to the main point of the article, it's always good if 1) Saudis are warring, 2) If a Saudi has to call for interfaith dialogue- even if he doesn't believe in it, and 3) AQ makes it's intentions even more plain.

It's interesting that the conception of "interfaith dialogue"- totally a product of the non-Muslim world, holds such power that even Muslims have to acknowledge it.

I'm often pessimistic vis a vis the Muslim world, but they're constantly, eternally buffetted by new ideas. It's got to hurt.

Posted by: satrap at July 28, 2008 6:53 PM

Oh dear,

His Highness the King of Saud has stepped into somthing he can not handle. I hope an immediate apology to these people + words to the effect of not doing it again should be forthcoming.

There is no need to antagonise them any more....any angry dog will but bite...you cross the road not face it.

I certainly hope he says sorry from all of us ...I certainly wouldn't wanna cross these rough and tough types.

Our stomach constitution is not made up like theirs...the king needs to be more careful.

Posted by: hindenberg at July 28, 2008 7:09 PM

Marisol,
Even if al Qaeda wasn't looking to play bad cop to Abdullah's good cop, it still worked out that way. Now Abdullah gets to portray himself as the "moderate" Muslim battling al Qaeda extremists. Suddenly the man whose country has been actively fomenting jihad against the West looks embattled.
My question is: how many statements like this one does it take for Western leaders to get it through their heads that Islam isn't interested in peaceful coexistence with ANYONE?
The very idea that cooperation with others is a betrayal of Islam cannot be discounted. Al Qaeda terrorists got it from somewhere - the hadiths maybe?

Posted by: PMK at July 28, 2008 7:11 PM

"Yeah, because those extremist Buddhists are just wreaking havoc."

well, actually they are.

1) In Burma where they view the northern tribes - eg Karen the same way daleks view humans and have a similar extermination policy.

though some may claim that Buddism is being hijacked by the military junta, i'm not aware of worldwide Buddism condeming and distancing themselves.

2) In Ceylon. A clear and unambigious persecution of Christians resulting even in murders.

Posted by: exposesithlords at July 28, 2008 7:31 PM

Hugh "...doing their tribal dances, wearing those sneers of cold command."

An artist with words you have captured the Saudi essence - the barbaric and the inhuman males upon which we have bestowed immense, almost inconceivable wealth and the power that comes with that wealth.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 28, 2008 7:34 PM

I don't see why they wouldn't have gotten to the saudi 'king' long ago, if they truly had the means to do so. What value is the 'royal family' to the wahabbis?

Posted by: Infidel33 at July 28, 2008 7:41 PM

Let's play al-Qaeda for a second. Let's assume you want the West to understand that you want religious warfare in which you intend to convert everyone to Islam and impose Sharia and set up a Caliphate and all that.

How much clearer could you state your intentions?

Posted by: Greek Fire at July 28, 2008 7:41 PM

Fighting in Gaza between Hamas and al-Qaeda? That's good news. Each busy destroying the other can only be good news for us "Infidels".

Slightly OT (but not really; death & violence is very much on target when discussing Islam, it seems), I just ran across this interesting bit regarding the Islamic flag in the Era of the Prophet (scroll down to this title, if it doesn't open there automatically):

http://www.fotw.us/Flags/islam.html

How appropriate that it's pure black; the symbol of death.

Posted by: Vee at July 28, 2008 7:53 PM

That "sneer of cold command" I like to use with the Saudis is a phrase I shamelessly lifted from Shelley's "Ozymandias."

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2008 7:59 PM

I hope I can laugh here: I mean you know the usual antics form the Muslims...Ha ha ha ha...such respite is rare when fighting the beast of Islam. I have to cherish these moments because they keep my sanity, after reading all the evil that is perpetrated it can become almost sickening. I have to say that my thinking becomes almost hard lined.

Posted by: savsiv at July 28, 2008 7:59 PM

At this point, the king should convert to Christinity and apply for refugee status in Italy or USA, shouldn't he?

Posted by: Alert at July 28, 2008 8:02 PM

"Al-Qaeda calls for death of Saudi king for interfaith dialogue"

How narrow-minded and disrespectful!

Posted by: Abscedere at July 28, 2008 8:04 PM

This was not a PR stunt, but Abdullah will spin it that way after the fact. Either that or one of these days we will see on MEMRI a translated secret broadcast or memo that Abdullah only did it for the sake of taqiya against the Infidel. The ONLY interest Saudi Arabia has ever had in quashing terrorism is the preservation of Al Saud family power. As for the relationship with Wahhabi clerics, one word: codependent. Clerics lend the Al Saud regime credibility as "Custodians of the Two Holy Mosques," and without the Al Sauds, the clerics would all be out in the desert or in caves, issuing fatwas over the Internet (just like another disgruntled, pro-caliphate, anti-monarchy Saudi maniac we all know), because--guess what--most ordinary Saudis have no use for either group and would get rid of them if they could.

Posted by: deniisu at July 28, 2008 8:06 PM

geez, talk about biting off the hand that feeds them!

The whole dialog thing won't come to fruitation anyway. I agree with Hugh and his first posted comment to this article.

Posted by: R_not at July 28, 2008 8:15 PM

But al-Libi says, "equating Islam with other religions is a betrayal of Islam."

Correction. Equating Islam with other religions is a betrayal BY Islam - not of Islam. Islam betrays the One True God, so please don't clump Islam in with other religions....sheesh.

Posted by: champ at July 28, 2008 8:29 PM

Hugh-

I hope them an Ozymandian fate!

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 28, 2008 9:06 PM

....everyone can relax, it was taqqiya, not real 'dialogue'

Posted by: ploome at July 28, 2008 9:08 PM

I wonder if King Abdullah will fire back at al-Libi for condemning tolerance and respect. After all, Islam is a "religion of peace".

But, if you think about it, they all feel that Spain belongs to the muslims anyway. They should at least give him credit for having the meeting there.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at July 28, 2008 9:23 PM

Apparently, holding this conference in al Andaluz and not Mecca or Medina didn't help.

Alert

If the King converts to Christianity, there would be less, not more chances of him being granted asylum (cf: Iraqi Christians vs. Iraqi Mohammedans: guess which group is getting the 700k extra visas to the US?): remaining a Mohammedan actually improves his chances. Actually, in this case, I hope that al Qaeda does pull off their toppling of the Saudi regime, so that the US is forced to invade that country and crack down on the Mohammedans - something it cannot do as long as they are an 'ally'. Which is why, unlike others on this site, I don't support the continuation in power of Abdullah, Musharraf, Mubarak - they just elongate the taquiyya value of their countries, and keep the influx flowing. We weren't taking in refugees left and right from Libya, Syria in the 80s without proper scrutiny the way we are from Egypt, Pak, KSA now.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 28, 2008 10:18 PM

Good security in letting al-Libi escape to continue his terrorism.

Like ebola viruses, these maniacs have to be destroyed when isolated, not incubated.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 28, 2008 10:28 PM

"An al-Qaida commander who escaped from a US prison..."

OK, it stopped being believable right there. If this were the typical Saudi catch and release program or the notorious "vault-like" prisons of Afghanistan and Pakistan, then it would fly.

in all seriousness, Al-Qaeda probably did issue the threat to Abdullah. Their opposing fast-jihad as compared to the Saudi model is well-documented.

And anyway, who really cares about Abdullah's well-being?

I got your back, Marisol.

Posted by: awake at July 28, 2008 10:32 PM

After all these years from Ford to Bush most people in government have had the fear that something will happen to halt the flow of oil from the Saudis. The handling of these oil shieks and princes with kid gloves will come to naught if Abdullah is murdered.

Gasoline may be hovering around $4 but there are no gas lines and shortages ala 1973(actual or because of government ineptitude does not matter). I have become so pessimistic that I believe if Abdullah is whacked, all hell will break loose.

One observation: There are no taped statements coming from Osama bin Laden - I wonder why. Dead? Almost dead?

Posted by: Pelayo at July 28, 2008 11:01 PM

Might I suggest that King Abdullah is indeed afraid because, after all, Muslims slaughtering other Muslims for not being Islamically pure enough has a very, very long history to it. Sometimes skepticism can be overdone----or simplified. Hugh may be right, but I'm not absolutely convinced that he is. It's just possible Abdullah fears for his life, while at the same time not being ignorant of the benefits which would accrue for posing to the West as a "reasonable Muslim." Why can't both be the case? The Machiavellian implications here are multifold.

Posted by: Wellington at July 28, 2008 11:05 PM

"It's just possible Abdullah fears for his life, while at the same time not being ignorant of the benefits which would accrue for posing to the West as a "reasonable Muslim." Why can't both be the case?"
-- from a posting above

Who ever suggested otherwise? Of course it could be, of course it most likely is, the case.

Posted by: Hugh at July 28, 2008 11:11 PM

Well, Hugh, mentioning as you did that all this could just be written off as a propaganda stunt, or something not to be taken at face value, seemed to me, at least, as a way of saying that Abdullah is completely insincere, when, in fact, he might be only semi-insincere. A subtle difference to be sure, but a difference nonetheless. I don't mean to quibble, and yet I do.

Posted by: Wellington at July 28, 2008 11:25 PM

You know Islamic law is easy, just call for the death of the offender regardless of the crime and you can't go wrong.

Posted by: waltc at July 28, 2008 11:50 PM

Actually, in this case, I hope that al Qaeda does pull off their toppling of the Saudi regime, so that the US is forced to invade that country and crack down on the Mohammedans - something it cannot do as long as they are an 'ally'.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 28, 2008 10:18 PM

IP, unless I am missing a dash of sarcasm, there is no way Al-Sauds will be toppled without Bush family intervention. Did you not see that Gulf War I was faught for the sole purpose of protecting the extended Bush family in Riyadh (that Kuwait was liberated, in the bargain, even better for Bush family)? ...and stopped when the Bush family in Riyadh was secure? Under Bush Jr. the policy was followed even more rigidly, as Bush family took Bandar as a "Bush", followed by:
- Escorting Bin Ladens (because, not inspite, of their Saudi identity), while all US flights were grounded.
- Opposing investigation into 9/11.
- Cleaning pages documenting Saudi involvement in 9/11.
- Including Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the phony "war-on-terror".
- Granting arms and aid to Saudi Arabia, the richest, by per-capita-income, country in the world.
- Increasing, not decreasing, student's visas for Saudi Arabia.
All of the above was a foregone conclusion, given Bush/Saudi business deals involving Arbusto, Harken Energy and Salem Bin Laden.
Point is that Bush family would use entire American armed forces to protect Al-Sauds, as it has, no matter how blatent lies it took, to invade Iraq in turn, to protect Saudi Arabia, at the cost of US blood and lives. Finally, Saudi Arabia is NOT an American ally but "Al-Saud family" is a "Bush family ally", if you see the difference.

Yes, voting Bush to White House in face of John Kerry, is understandable. Yet, Bush / Al-Saud family fan-fare has cost American blood and lives, both at home (9/11) and abroad (Iraq), for which president/commander-in-chief Bush should be impeached:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAoPbXojRlA&feature=email

Posted by: Alert at July 28, 2008 11:54 PM

allah AK-47bar!!

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 29, 2008 12:15 AM

Nice trick. This 45 minute video just bought Saudi Arabia 45 more years of claiming to credulous Westerners that they are as threatened by al Qaida as we infidels. That is, of course, a complete bald-faced lie.

Has there ever been an operation seriously targeting this filth in the heartland of Islam? A careful reading of the facts tells us that it's the infidels which are targeted, not the royal snakes. There are over 6,000 Saudi princes of the house of Saud. They cannot possibly protect themselves from the likes of al Qaida, that is, if al Qaida were truly interested in killing them. Can anyone provide the links to any stories in which, among all of the tens of thousands of terrorist attacks, a royal Saud has died?
No?

I'm not aware of one either.

Posted by: jsla at July 29, 2008 12:17 AM

Well, there ya go. The religion of peace...

Posted by: AtheistAfghan at July 29, 2008 12:19 AM

But al-Libi says "equating Islam with other religions is a betrayal of Islam." He calls for "the speedy killing of this tyrant."
......................

Not only are moderate Muslims at risk from "extremists", but even fake moderate Muslims are at risk.

Also, note again how Muslims use words differently from the rest of us--why does al-Libi consider the Saudi king a tyrant? Oh--not for any of the things that actually *do* make him a tyrant--the lack of democracy in "Saudi" Arabia, lack of freedom of speech and religion, oppression of women and minorities, his ransacking the country's oil money for his family's personal use, or any of that.

No, it even the vaguest appearance of tolerating other religions--Sirk, in al-Libis view--even if it was entirely false. When Muslims talk of "tyranny" and "oppression", it often means tolerance to the rest of us.

Posted by: gravenimage at July 29, 2008 12:42 AM

There is nothing new under the sun in Saudi Arabia
The royal family knows that a lot of Real Muslims
are trying to get them in another word get rid of them.
For a lot of radical Muslims , the Royal Family is not strict enough and they really would prefer to establish another form of authority. like the one in place in IRan now.

Posted by: Tartine at July 29, 2008 12:54 AM

Why work when allah has ordained all that jiza from hapless infidel jews next door? "O allah, make them bootie for us!"

These are the kind of people who put more attention into killing others than attention to improving their own material lot. These are the kind of people who would rather destroy your nice house rather than work to build a nice house for themself. Palestinians were trending positive and were rapidly becoming the most wealthy arabs in the region (with the exception of the wealthy ones who by accident live over pools of oil). The intifada or the murders the paleos committed upon israelis made it impossible for the israelis to mix with them.

Additionally, and the stupid un dominated by the islamic theive, fail to understand that poverty is caused by islamic civilization, itself. It prohibits interest and effectively prohibits capitalism dooming its followers to pertual poverty and scavenging from infidels who are in perpetual danger.

Posted by: David England at July 29, 2008 1:37 AM

Al Qaeda calls for the death of the Saudi king?

Taqiyya.

The whole "interfaith dialogue" proposed by the Saudis is taqiyya. To oppose it is merely a continuation of the taqiyya because it makes the Saudi king appear to be a victim.

The whole thing is a set up. The dhimmi attitude will be "oh look the Saudi king wants dialogue and Al Qaeda has threatened him for it, so we must support the king".

Then the dhimmis capitulate to the Saudi demands for sharia law recognition in the West etc.

Job done.

Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England at July 29, 2008 6:53 AM

I know of a middle aged women who converted to Islam at one of the Saudi mosques. She is a very kind person and quite a nice person. One thing though, she loves certain types of jewelry. Anything with a snake or housefly is her favorite. She wears lovely snake bracelets and colored glass 1-2 inch housefly pins.

There is something completely different about Islam. It appeals to a very different set of people.

(Please everyone, don't go out and throw away you housefly and snake jewelry.)

Posted by: Spot on at July 29, 2008 10:18 AM

Games Muslims play...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami

“Al Qaeda” is really a code word for “Jihad” all around. Does it really exist? It’s all religious nonsense anyway, so who cares? Their world exists in that schizophrenic universe of Mohammad’s delusional (caravan raiding pedophile) Allah, so nothing makes sense in the real world except their sick desire to loot and enslave, or kill.

It reminds me of that old book “Games People Play” (1964 book by psychiatrist Eric Berne), where the psychology of human relationships is reduced to confusing paradoxical ego-states, and tantrums. The Saudi king is pitched against Al Qaeda in a tribal sword dance. But it’s all Jihad in the end, and Al Qaeda is merely another mirror image of itself. If “Jihad” is a forbidden word, then “Al Qaeda” is its mirror image, and one hopes State is listening. But what is it really? Bin Laden has been quiet in his cave, deathly quiet, so there may not really exist an Al Qaeda anymore except in the twisted minds of jihadis, the king included. It’s all nonsense, and his “interfaith dialogue” a sham.

It’s all Jihad, deceitful confusion of ego-states to subvert the whole world to that schizoid Allah. The good-cop bad-cop idea makes sense then, as part of that psychological dysfunction that is Islam. They have no concept of truth, so it's all a lie.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 29, 2008 11:43 AM

Aren't the Satanic Verses somehow related to getting along with other religions and beliefs? They were denied by Gabriel (presumably when they conflicted with Mohammad's desire to spread Islam by the sword) in one of Mohammad's many convenient visions or visitations in which divine agreement with whatever he wanted to do was granted to Mohammad.

That's why many call Islam "Mohammadism" -- he's their real spiritual force in the world. So much for monotheism in islam.

What have these Mohammadists actually accomplished in the past 1400 years aside from death, destruction, and the imposition of blind obedience from the followers who too intimidated and brainwashed to question all the nonsense in this "religion of peace" ???

Posted by: Dr. T at July 29, 2008 1:01 PM