Analysis of What Fahd's Death Means to Saudi Arabia

by soj
Mon Aug 1st, 2005 at 04:17:29 PM EST

As I mentioned this morning, the long-ailing king of Saudi Arabia is dead.

I have heard and read various comments that this means relatively "little" in terms of Saudi internal politics. I beg to differ and the reasons are below.


First an extremely brief history of Saudi Arabia:

Before, during and after WW1, the British (the colonial occupiers of most of the Middle East, including the future Saudi Arabia) collaborated with a number of militias under the command of Abd al Aziz al-Saud, who was an ardent follower of the severe Wahhabism branch of Islam. After the war was over, Aziz negotiated and plotted with non-aligned political/spiritual leaders (including the guardian of Mecca) in order to obtain the governing of the newly-created country.

Abd al Aziz ibn-Saud became the first official king of Saudi Arabia. In the early 1930's, British and United States oil companies discovered and developed the first of the large oil fields that would bring enormous wealth to the country.

In 1953, Aziz died and his son, Saud bin Abdul Aziz, who had been the Crown Prince (next in line to the throne) became the new king. Although Saud initially did not have good relationships with the west, a key meeting in 1957 with President Eisenhower secured Saudi oil for the west.

In 1958, King Saud was linked to attempts to assassinate Egyptian leader Gemal Nasser, who had just united the countries of Egypt and Syria on the crest of rising pan-Arabism.

Due to this as well as other reasons, the senior royals began to clamor against King Saud, saying he should have given more responsibility to Faisal bin Abdelaziz Al Saud, who was the fourth son of the Aziz. By 1962, the royals were urging Faisal to take over the kingship while Saud was ill in a hospital abroad. On November 2, 1964, the ruling clerics in the country issued a fatwa and Faisal officially became the king.

Faisal was very popular during his time, particularly for being a stalwart enemy of Zionism (and regularly distributed copies of anti-Semitic books), his efforts to bring more Muslims in for their hajj (required pilgrimage) and for espousing only the strictest forms of Wahhabi Islam. Exiled King Saud tried to start a civil war from Yemen but his associates were caught and beheaded. It should be mentioned here for historical context that his agents committed several terrorist attacks against westerners (including Americans and British).

Faisal was assassinated on March 25, 1975 by a nephew, whose brother had earlier tried to topple Faisal in 1965. The earlier incident was related to Faisal's creation of the first Saudi television broadcasts.

Crown Prince Khalid immediately assumed the throne. It's worth noting here that under the kingship of Khalid, the Saudi government began to have extremely close military ties with the United States, including the purchase of sixty F-15 warplanes and AWACS craft.

What's not included in most official histories is that this is also the period of time when Saudi Arabia contracted with the Vinnell Corporation to train its "National Guard", which is nothing whatsoever like the American National Guard. The Saudi "National Guard" is instead something akin to the Praetorian Guard of the Roman Empire and they provide security to the royal family and certain national facilities.

The Vinnell Corporation continues to hold this contract with the Saudi government, which led directly to the assassination of Robert C. Jacobs, whose gruesome beheading video was shown in June 2004. You can read my entire story about him here, including the info that he was in Saudi Arabia to train the "National Guard" on maintenance of its AH64 Apache attack helicopters.

Khalid was much more modern than Faisal before him, although "modern" is a relative word. The most significant act that occurred under Khalid's reign was the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca (the holiest site in Islam) on November 20, 1979. The takeover was led by aman named Juhaiman ibn Muhammad ibn Saif al Utaiba, who was a descendent of the original Sharif (guardian) of Mecca whom King Aziz had coopted some 50 years earlier. Juhaiman and his followers believed that the Saudi royals had lost their legitimacy due to corruption and westernization.

While Mecca was occupied by Juhaiman's followers (which included women by the way), another man was leading riots and protests in the east in Al Qatif - the man known most commonly as Ayatollah Khomeini. It was his actions in support of Juhaiman that cemented his popularity in his home nation of Iran and a few weeks later he returned from exile and led the Iranian revolution.

Khalid sent in 20,000 "National Guard" troops (see above) and the uprising was quashed after a few deaths and hundreds of arrests. However, unknownst to the wider world, a second person was equally inspired by the events of 1979 but it would be many more years before his name was famous - Osama bin Laden. Looking back he declared that moment to be the first inspiration to lead a jihad against insincere and impure forms of Islam.

During the 1980-1988 war between Iraq and Iran, Saudi Arabia was a major supporter of Saddam Hussein (with the encouragement and blessing of the United States, his primary financial and military backer). It is unknown how much money Saudi Arabia contributed to the secular government of Saddam Hussein but it was clearly in the millions.

As Khalid grew older, he came more and more reliant on Fahd bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, who took over the kingship with Khalid died from an illness on June 14, 1982. It is this King Fahd who died this morning, although he was crippled by a stroke in 1995 and did very little day-to-day decision making, instead delegating that to his half-brother Abdullah, who will (or has already) take over the kingship.

So, to sum it up, the first King was Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. All the other four (now five) kings are the sons of this man, who had between 50 and 200 children. While this sounds like something of a "gossip" column, the children of this man are the principle players in Saudi Arabia today.

The most powerful seven leaders of the house of Saud are King Fahd (now dead), Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Abdel-Rahman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, Turki bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud and Ahmed bin Abdul Abdulaziz al-Saud. That's probably a few too many Aziz's and al-Saud's to digest, so let me break it down:
  1. Fahd - King (died today)
  2. Sultan - was Defense Minister, now Crown Prince
  3. Nayef - Interior Minister
  4. Abdel Rahmen - Deputy Minister of Defense
  5. Turki - holds no formal office
  6. Salman - governor of Riyadh, the capital
  7. Ahmed - Deputy Minister of Interior
All seven of these men are full brothers, sons of King Aziz and his sixth wife Hussan bint Ahmad al-Sudairy. Because of this, they are often referred to as the "Sudairi Seven".

The current king (or the man shortly to be crowned) is Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, who is the son of Aziz and his eighth wife, Fahda bint Asi al-Shuraim. Abdullah was born in 1921 and is older than all of the Sudairi Seven.

Let's look at the seven (now six):

Sultan (born 1928) has been the Minister of Defense since 1962 and played a vital role in procuring advanced western aircraft and armaments, and the hosting and alliance with the west during the 1991 Gulf War. After Fahd's death, he is now the Crown Prince or next in line to the throne.

In addition, the Defense Minister is also in charge of the Petroleum Council, which makes Sultan the de facto chief of all the oil.

It's worth noting that the actual head of the National Guard (which is not part of the regular armed forces) though is Mitab, the son of Abdullah (soon to be king).

His son is Bandar "Bush" bin Sultan, who was the long-time ambassador to the United States until he was replaced just a month ago. It is likely that with his dad's promotion, Bandar will get a lucrative assignment, possibly being the head of Saudi intelligence. You can read an amusing (but fake) interview with Bandar here.

Bandar is not just tied to the Bush and Cheney families in the current administration, he also acted as an intermediary in the Iran Contra Affair.

Although Sultan played a vital role in coordinating with the west during the 1991 Gulf War, he later was the man responsible for denying attacks on Afghanistan from western militaries after September 11, 2001. He was also one of the three prominent royals who was sued in the (failed) lawsuit linking Saudi sponsorship of terrorism to 9/11.

I should mention here that when Abdullah was out of the country in 1995 (after King Fahd was essentially removed from the picture due to a stroke), Sultan attempted a coup, asking the leading clerics to recognize his position in the accession to the throne. This caused Abdullah to send in the National Guard and an outright civil war nearly broke out.

Nayef (born 1934) is now next in line behind Sultan and is much younger and in much better health. Nayef has been the Interior Minister since 1975, which is responsible for the clergy, a major post. Nayef has also overseen the awarding of millions of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, which has made him deeply unpopular by many outsiders.

It's worth noting here that Nayef blamed Israeli intelligence agents for the attacks of 9/11 while less sensationalist sources report that many of his charities fund terrorism worldwide, including that of one of the 9/11 hijackers. Nayef's role in the Kingdom is quite often understated but he is quietly very influential. He is also strongly allied with Sultan.

Abdel-Rahman - There is little to note about Abdel-Rahman (born 1931) and he is probably the least influential of the surviving Sudairi Seven.

Turki - Born in 1932, he is often confused with Turki al-Faisal bin Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud, who was the long time intelligence chief and is now the ambassador to the United States (replacing Bandar Bush). Turki holds no formal office and along with Abdel-Rahman plays a relatively insignificant role in the politics of the kingdom. Note that's relatively.

Salman - Born in 1936, he is both the governor of Riyad as well as the unofficial "referee" of disputes between different members of the royal family. Salman is more focused on business and finances and has strong alliances amongst Saudi entrepreneurs. It's worth noting that he played a significant role in funding and aiding the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. At one time, he and his family were in opposition to Nayef.

It's definitely worth noting here that Salman owns a number of media outlets, including the British-based HH Saudi Research and Marketing. There are ominous ties between Salman and Al-Qaeda, links which I have explored at great length in an article you can read here.

Additionally, one of Salman's sons (Ahmed bin Salman) was in the United States on 9/11 and was included in the group of Saudis who were flown out of the country two days later when all other air traffic was grounded.

Salman's son Ahmed died shortly thereafter under mysterious circumstances. In March 2002, a man named Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan as a terrorist. American interrogators, posing as Saudis, got Zubaydah to admit that 1) he was a major Al-Qaeda recruiter and 2) that his main contacts were in the Saudi royal household, specifically Ahmed bin Salman (son of Salman above).

Just four weeks after Zubaydah's revelation, Ahmed did of a heart attack. The second royal that Zubaydah identified was Prince Sultan bin Faisal. See below for who he is. Another man identified was Prince Fahd, who mysteriously "died of thirst" just shortly after Ahmed.

Ahmed - Born in 1940, he is the youngest of the Sudairis. He serves as the Deputy Interior Minister under Nayef.

Since the 1979 takeover in Mecca, there have been two forces in operation in Saudi Arabia. By western standards, both are extremely, extremely conservative but in Saudi Arabia they can be divided into the "conservative, anti-western" and "pro-western, more liberal" camps.

In the "liberal" camp of the Sudairi is the long-time Crown Prince Abdullah, soon to be the King. Formerly or partially in the "liberal" camp were Sultan, his son Bandar, and Salman, but these have apparently switched sides.

Others in the "liberal" camp and allied with Abdullah are Abdul Majeed bin Abdul Aziz, the governor of Mecca and al-Walid bin Talal, who is wealthy even in relation to fellow Saudis. Abdullah's alliance with Abdul Majeed is extremely important as his clan rules the holy sites of Islam and are therefore highly influential.

In the "conservative" camp are Sultan (whose son is Bandar), Nayef (Interior Minister) and Salman (businessman, media empire, governor of Riyadh). All these men of course have extensive networks of family members and this is a very concise and truncated description.

Another extremely important Saudi royal is (or was) Prince Sultan bin Faisal, who was killed in a car accident driving to Ahmed (son of Salman)'s funeral. He was a descendent of King Faisal (above).

Another important son of King Faisal is Turki bin Faisal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, who was the head of Saudi intelligence from 1977 until just one month before 9/11. He and his brother Sultan (died in car accident) were sued unsuccessfully for their role in sponsoring the 9/11 attacks, along with one of his other brothers (Mohammed) and the Sultan of the Sudairi Seven.

It is this Turki who was close friends with Osama bin Laden when they both were students at King Abdul Aziz university. It was while they were both in college that the 1979 takeover of Mecca occurred, which as I mentioned inspired bin Laden to go to Afghanistan and join the mujaheddin.

There is also credible evidence that Osama bin Laden has been paid off by the Saudi royals to keep from stirring up trouble in the country, and this was likely coordinated through sympathetic royals, particularly Turki (bin Faisal) and Nayef.

So in addition to the Sudairis who are in the "conservative" camp, you can add the Faisals.

In other words, with the exception of (soon to be King) Abdullah, the anti-western and pro-conservative forces have all consolidated their positions with Fahd's death.

It's a little too black and white to say one prince is "anti-western" or not - Bandar has lived in the west for decades and smokes and drinks. Turki (son of Faisal) has worked extensively with western intelligence agencies. Sultan has as well. But in the current climate, there is ample evidence that they are opposed to the "modernization" of Saudi Arabia, which includes voting, political reform and non-domestic media, and are sympathetic (or even outright supportive) of Al-Qaeda and their followers.

There are over 10,000 male members of the Saudi royal family but these are the most significant and powerful members. And the way I see it, Abdullah and his allies are just one forced abdication or assassination away from being replaced by Sultan and the more conservative, anti-western Saudi royals.

Although Abdullah is fairly well entrenched, he is elderly. His son Mitab (age approximately 40) is in charge of the National Guard, which has been at the forefront of fighting the various militants that have struck the kingdom over the past two years.

If and when Sultan becomes king, through fair or foul means, it could signify a major political shift in Saudi Arabia. And as everyone knows, the kingdom still has enormous reserves of oil and any change, however slight, in their policies would have dramatic effects on the west, particularly the United States. And he's already tried it once in 1995. As he himself ages, he may be considering something similar right now.

I hope this brief overview has helped you understand the current political situation as a result of King Fahd's death. I'll leave you with a quote from a NYT article from June 12, 2004:

The United States is dependent on Saudi Arabian oil, and the kingdom is a lynchpin in Middle Eastern affairs. It also occupies a pivotal place in the terrorism debate, largely because its charities are suspected of financing radical Islamic groups worldwide. Saudi Arabian bank accounts at the Riggs National Corporation are also at the center of a continuing federal investigation of possible terrorist financing, further straining American relations with the kingdom.

"It is not said openly, but many in the U.S. government believe that Saudi Arabia is currently engaged in a civil war and that U.S. policy should be to ensure that the House of Saud wins that civil war," said William F. Wechsler, co-author of the council report. "The goal of U.S. policy should not only be that the Saudi regime wins that war, but that it fundamentally transforms itself in the process."

Peace
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Thanks for the analysis (although I admit that there are way too many Fahds, Sauds, Aziz's and so on for me to grasp it all in one sitting). It does help to set the background for all of this stuff that is occurring and what is still to come.

I remember wondering just what was going on, a few years ago, with the spate of Saudi prince deaths, from all sorts of weird causes. I think there were about 10 of them over the space of a year or so. I still have no clue, but still.

Politics, social issues, commentary and food
Human Beams Magazine

by Nanette (nanette at humanbeams dot com) on Mon Aug 1st, 2005 at 05:33:49 PM EST
who is in power. They will sell us the oil because they need the money just as badly as we need the oil.

Thanks for the info in any case. We should certainly follow what's going on, but I have serious doubts that any of this really matters.

I know it's a lost cause, but here I stand.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Aug 1st, 2005 at 05:39:18 PM EST
the oil/money trade will continue until you get enough windmills up to kill the econs (never) or the oil runs out (I'll be dead).

But the question is will the money be used to support fundi Wahabis or not.  If the conservatives consolidate power and crack down on a restive population, all hell could break loose.

Saudi has a problem with not enough work and too many rules for a growing number of highly educated younger people who've been exposed to Western lifestyles.  The royals can fly to London or where ever when they want to drink and misbehave.  The new middle class is stuck under the thumb of the religious police.   Someday that place is going to boil over and if the new regime puts Pat-Robertson-in-a-robe in charge, it will be hastened.

by HiD on Mon Aug 1st, 2005 at 08:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I am saying explicitly that we should not care if they have fundamentalists in pwoer in these countries. As far as I am concerned, this is the best way to vaccinate their populations against their folly (as in Iran) and I don't see any other way to do it.

The only thing we need to say is that any State-sponsored terrorism (financing, encouraging, hosting or tolerating terrorists) will be treated as an act of war. Full stop.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 04:31:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Using your standard we would be at war with Saudi now.  Ditto Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Malaysia, and others.

I'd rather turn our backs and spend the economic pain on energy alternatives rather than bullets.  We need to go there eventually anyway.

I don't want us to interfere, but rooting for moderates to progressives from the sidelines isn't going to hurt anything.

by HiD on Fri Aug 5th, 2005 at 04:02:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In terms of oil, more or less you're right - the Saudis will continue to sell it to all its regular customers.

However the sponsoring of extremism, not just in Afghanistan and Pakistan but even in the United States (wrote an entire article about it which you can find here).

That extremism leads to terrorism, directly or indirectly, and this is obviously a major issue that affects us all.  A Saudi prince funds a madrassah which inspires a terrorist to blow up London and then Australia implements ID cards or a "Patriot Act" type law.  It's a vicious circle.

However, I'm in full agreement with all your energy diaries, which can be boiled down to this "find another energy source and quick!".

Pax

Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian

by soj on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 01:48:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See above. Treat State support to terrorism explicitly as an act of war, but don't meddle in any other way. That might concentrate a few minds.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 04:32:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with Jérôme. Despite their diverse ideological inclinations, all the members of the Saudi royal family have a common interest: staying in power. The current system guarantees it. They know quite well that any change is likely to wreak havoc in the Saudi society, unleashing forces they couldn't manage. It is even more likely if the change is seen as a coup. Given the fact that Abdallah bin Abd el Aziz is in his eighties, I think they will wait until he dies and Sultan takes over...

And yes, they will continue to finance fundamentalism, which is the breeding ground for terrorism. They will do so not because they are ideologically committed to fundamental islamism (some of them are), but because, doing so, on one hand they maintain their legitimacy and their pivotal role as guardians of the holy places and on the other hand they buy the support (or at least the neutrality) of a great number of fundamentalists who would otherwise turn against them.    

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 04:59:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're correct so long as rational actors remain in power. I'm not sure that some of the potential victors from a Saudi civil war would count as entirely rational a fanatically anti-Western regime could cause massive disruption, if only for a short time.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:05:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
usually makes you rational real quick - or justifies a campaign à la Afghanistan - a useful precedent in that respect.

We only need to make clear that we will not tolerate failed States. Any other kind of government we can tolerate and deal with rationally - and no compromission.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's the going rate for glow-in-the-dark oil?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:24:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who is going to use nukes?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm wandering off into crazy fantasy speculation land here, but let's pretend that there was a civil war in Saudi and that I, a committed anti-westerner from a religious cult that considers all and any means justified in battling the decadent west on behalf of my god, seize power. The first question is how do I hold on to power against attack from the West. I'd move nukes into the oil fields and threaten to destroy them if anyone attacks. The Afghanistan solution is not without risks. Hell, if my cult is mad enough I might consider the oil the fundamental cause of the sins in my country and not be too bothered if I destroyed it. This is a rational policy in terms of my world view. I don't even need real nukes: all I have to do is dirty a substantial part of the oil.

I don't know what would come out of a Saudi civil war, but your assumption that it'll have little or no effect on the outside world seems over optimistic.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:07:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a rational policy in terms of my world view.

Someone who understands that rational is relative and not =reasonable!

As for your comment, I agree completely. Economic interests aren't on top of everyone's priority list.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand what you mean better. Yes, civil war is the greatest (and pretty much the only) danger to oil production, but it is rare that it has lasted long enough to really disrupt oil production (witness Algeria, Iran for examples with different outcomes)

My question is - can you have the combination of (i) some fundamentalist having access to the nuclear bomb and (ii) not being in power at the same time.

Because using the nuclear bomb, even within its own country, is a guaranteed trigger for retaliation, whether nuclear or more targetted, against that leader/ship controlling the nukes.

If they are rational enough to have the organisation to actually control a nuke, they will be rational enough to try to keep in power. The "fundamentalist"leaders don't go kill themselves, they send others to do it for their political goals. fundamentalism is really a way to control society and to keep power. The fundamentalist and actual believers don't get close to power, because then they are not pious anymore.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They don't have to intend to use it to put it in place. Then maybe it doesn't take that much to get it used. I realise it's a pretty extreme case.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 07:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An extremist in charge of Saudi Arabia would have a lot of disposable cash.  How many loose Soviet nukes are there floating around the former Soviet satellite states?  I had thought there were a lot, and the staff minding them are increasingly hungry, as they are paid less and less regularly.
by guleblanc on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 03:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
.
Three states had ties with the Afghan-Taliban regime: Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. These are true enemies of the West and breeding ground for Al Qaeda terror. All four states with semi-feudal regimes based on tribal leaders forming a nation in recent times.

  • Aramco World
    ~~~
  • by Oui on Mon Aug 1st, 2005 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    Wow, you did a great work of summing up the house of al-Saud, but just to follow, I had to draw up a family tree.

    I somehow missed the misterious killings of the three Abu Zubaydah-implicated princes back in 2002, thanks for that too. (However, after googling to learn more about this story, I suggest a minor correction: one of the three, Sultan bin Faisal, wasn't the son of king Faisal - who was bin [son of] Abd al-Aziz -, but one Faisal bin Turki bin Abdullah, apparently a side branch not descended of the first king.)

    *Traitor*, n.
    A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

    by DoDo on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 04:47:31 AM EST
    Thanks for the correction Dodo.  To help your family tree see Wikipedia 's list of his primary wives.

    Pax

    Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian

    by soj on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 04:53:26 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    His primary wives. Oh boy.

    Thanks for that. Your articles always feel like we have our own private research arm working for us.

    by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:03:25 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Thanks Colman, and I apologize all the time I've said colEman.  It's the lanterns, I loved them as a kid!

    As for the research, everything I write here is from public sources.  It just takes time to look over this stuff and chase down every Saudi prince and what's been written or said about him.

    Plus back in "the day", a lot of Nick Berg stuff tied into the Saudis, particularly Salman (the Sudairi Salman) and how his companies finance their websites.  I sure wish a better financed media person would chase this crap down cuz I get tired of doing it for pennies.

    I make too many mistakes as well since I don't have time to properly edit my stuff :(

    Pax

    Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian

    by soj on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 07:54:33 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Talking of pennies ...
    by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 08:02:59 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Hey 'Soj,' you guys can drop the act now. I've caught on. It'd be unnatural for a single person to be that well informed.

    So, how many of you are there?

    The world's northernmost desert wind.

    by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 03:54:25 PM EST
    The good news/bad news for me visiting Eurotrib and reading amazing diaries like this is that I'm becoming more informed all the time, the bad news is I also realize how truly uninformed I really am.

    I know one thing that happened to get through all the family names was the mention of Saudi money in Riggs Bank-isn't that where Bush's Uncle was on the board or in charge?...and recently stepped down? Or the bank itself was fined but his Uncle of course wasn't?

    "People never do evil so throughly and happily as when they do it from moral conviction."-Blaise Pascal

    by chocolate ink on Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 at 08:49:02 PM EST


    Display:
    Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]