Saudi Prince Offers $1mil For Israeli Soldier

LAXintl · Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:02 am

This might turn out to be a new cottage industry.

Prince Khaled bin Talal, brother of billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is offering $1mil bounty for the capture of additional Israeli soldiers to swap for further Palestinian prisoners.

Story:
Saudi royal offers bounty to catch Israeli soldier
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45095916...ews-mideast_n_africa/#.Tq3ksN7iGU8

Pretty sick

Dreadnought · Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:15 am

We should offer a bounty on Prince Khaled bin Talal, to be sold to Iran.

L-188 · Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:42 am

Doesn't surprise me.

Anybody remember when then NYC Mayor Gulianni tore up that 9/11 donation check from the Sauis because the saudi-whatever?started into how the us brought the attack on itself?

ltbewr · Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:57 am

It is a very sad and sick situation. That Israel considers 1 of their solders more valuable to them than 1000 Palestinians, says a lot about them, iIt also maybe about the terrible guilt many in Israel has toward what they have done to the Palestinians. This also shows how the recent deal done by Israel was bound to have a unintended result. What if dozens of Israeli solders were captured and tortured or given show trials as a result of these perverse incentives? What if they captured 100's, would they demand Israel turn over territory instead of or in addition to Palestinians? Of course, the USA is caught in the middle, keeping Israel happy or making sure the oil flows 100% from Saudi Arabia?

SOBHI51 · Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:16 am

Did anybody cared to read the whole story?

Prince Khaled said he made the offer in response to what he said were Israeli threats against Qarani's life. He did not provide any further details.
In Israel, extremists have offered two rewards of $100,000 to anyone who kills a Palestinian released in the Schalit deal if the Palestinian killed Israelis.
Extremist settler activist Baruch Marzel said he was familiar with the bounties and that there were a number of bereaved Israeli families who were looking to "settle the score" with the killers.

It's a two way street and both are terrible.

LAXintl · Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:26 am

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):
It's a two way street and both are terrible.

Its not a two-way street.

Its one thing, if a private person advocates something, its another when a member or the ruling government does.

Its as if Bibi Netanyahu personally offered the $1,000,000 for the head of someone.

Rather disgraceful act

If the Saudi government and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal have any courage they would distance themselves far from the non-sense comments of Prince Khaled bin Talal.

At the very least hopefully Western governments make note of this and add Prince Khaled bin Talal to no-entry list.

Quokka · Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:17 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Its one thing, if a private person advocates something, its another when a member or the ruling government does.

From your own link

Quote:
said a voice identified as Prince Khaled, who holds no official position in the government.

(Emphasis added)

So we in fact have a private citizen doing on a more "bountiful" scale what we have other private citizens doing. Question is whether your source previously reported the Israeli extremists "offer", seriously because I do not know. If not, why not? Is the claim not true or was it simply not considered worth reporting?

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):
It's a two way street and both are terrible.

LAXintl · Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:30 am

Quoting Quokka (Reply 7):
(Emphasis added)

He is a Prince. He might not have an official job, but he is a member of Saudi Arabia's royal family.

His actions being a member of the royal family by default become representative of Saudi Arabia.
He in no way is an average private citizen.

Newark727 · Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:11 am

What a perverse situation...

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
His actions being a member of the royal family by default become representative of Saudi Arabia.

While his actions do carry much more weight than the average Saudi Arabian citizen, I think saying that they become representative of the country by default is going a little far.

SOBHI51 · Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:03 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
At the very least hopefully Western governments make note of this and add Prince Khaled bin Talal to no-entry list.

How about the extremists from the other side, should they not also be included on that list?

And as it was mentioned before the prince holds no official position.

TheCommodore · Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:05 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Its as if Bibi Netanyahu personally offered the $1,000,000 for the head of someone.

Whats the value of all the land Bibi has stolen, since he's been PM ?

Stealing a mans lively hood by taking away his land, is tantamount to killing him and his family, if they have no means of earning a living, they may as well be dead.

Stealing is no better in my book.

Quoting Quokka (Reply 7):
Question is whether your source previously reported the Israeli extremists "offer", seriously because I do not know. If not, why not? Is the claim not true or was it simply not considered worth reporting?

Have done a quick search and all I could find is this small article from Haaretz.

And even in that article, the figure mentioned is $900k and not a million as stated in by the OP.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...pture-of-israeli-soldiers-1.392666

[Edited 2011-10-30 22:07:11]

BMI727 · Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:35 am

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Pretty sick

Building more settlements doesn't help the situation either. There is enough idiotic conduct on both sides.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
That Israel considers 1 of their solders more valuable to them than 1000 Palestinians, says a lot about them,

They don't want to leave a man behind. I can respect that.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
If the Saudi government and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal have any courage they would distance themselves far from the non-sense comments of Prince Khaled bin Talal.

If it goes down like the Abu Zubaydah affair, it will be worse than that.

OA260 · Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:36 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
And even in that article, the figure mentioned is $900k and not a million as stated in by the OP.

Ah yes but a million makes a more sensationalist thread title

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):
It's a two way street and both are terrible.

+1 Best post so far.

MD11Engineer · Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:16 am

From what I understand, the Saudi royal house is deeply dividede between reformers and ultraconservatives. The current king belongs to the reformer group and has over the last decades gradually started reforms (e.g. curbing the powers of the religious police and religious courts, building a new university, which AFAIK also accepts female students etc.), but he is dependent on the assembly of tribal elders and chiefs, who are deeply conservative and feudalist (they fear that with democratic reforms they will lose their influence). Too many changes in a short period might well start an uprising by ultraconservative forces, after all Al Qaeda was founded primarely by Saudi citizens. The crown prince, who unfortunately died a few weeks ago, was a reformer as well, but the minister of the interior represents the conservative branch of the royal family, who are against any reforms. I´d be interested who will be the next in line for the throne should the aging king die suddenly.

Jan

777way · Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:36 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 13):
which AFAIK also accepts female students etc

You mean co-ed, as universities for women do exist, its conservative yes, though not very I found the atmosphere in the holy cities quite relaxed, saw some interesting sights when people watching, that were even surprising to me considering the place.

na · Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:01 am

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):
It's a two way street and both are terrible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
Building more settlements doesn't help the situation either. There is enough idiotic conduct on both sides.

This very much sums it up. I mean, that Saudi prince is an idiot, but the settlement policy of the Israelis is idiotic and illegal as well. They occupy land they dont own and create realities by planting its people there in the hope that one day they are the majority and its not possible to remove them. Israel is creating facts. And all this by oppressing the people that own the land who have no foundations to build a proper society on. Where else on this world does this happen without the public outcry of the leading members of the UN? This will remain a hornet´s nest for a hundred years if the UN cannot force both sides to a compromise accepted by the majority of both populations.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
They don't want to leave a man behind. I can respect that.

I do respect that as well, but what greater harm can and will those 1000 freed "extremists" do? And what example does that give to the Palestinian extremist groups?

Quokka · Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:20 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 13):
I´d be interested who will be the next in line for the throne should the aging king die suddenly.

Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud has been appointed as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. He was appointed second deputy prime minister and it has been traditional that the person appointed to that position would become Crown Prince. But he himself isn't a young man being 78 so when he does replace King Abdullah it will be interesting to see who becomes Crown Prince in his place.

LAXintl · Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:23 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
Whats the value of all the land Bibi has stolen, since he's been PM ?

What land would that be that you claim the Honorable PM has stolen ?

I can't recall the borders of the State of Israel changing in the last almost 40-years. And when they did, it was because of outside aggression. If anything Israeli controlled territory has shrunk significantly in years since.

cedars747 · Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:11 pm

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):
Did anybody cared to read the whole story?

Unbellivable SOBHI ! they turned the story up side down

TheCommodore · Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:01 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
What land would that be that you claim the Honorable PM has stolen ?

Go read up on how total land mass belonging to the Palestinians has shrunk over the years !

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

Due to Israel and no one else.

LAXintl · Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:56 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 20):
Go read up on how total land mass belonging to the Palestinians has shrunk over the years !

Hmm....

If you want some real history, lets look back at the fact the Jewish people have been living on the lands going back 4,000 years.

If you want more contemporary history, how can one ignore the insistent attacks the State of Israel has endured from its Arab neighbors which have desired to push the nation into the ocean.

If the Arabs states were maybe not so reckless in their gambits they would still have the original 1947 borders in place and would not have to pay the consequences of such military adventures including the displacement of so identified Palestinian people which are hardly wanted by the Arab nations themselves either.

777way · Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:16 pm

Why should the Arabs take in Palestinains when they were supposed to have their own country, just because they are Arabs does not mean they have to absorbed by other Arab states, hosted a refugeees maybe but nothing more, it also dilutes the cause and would give israel another excuse not to give back what they have taken, they made big mistakes in that past though for sure for whatever reason.

a380us · Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:18 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 10):
Stealing is no better in my book.

Quoting 777way (Reply 22):
Why should the Arabs take in Palestinains when they were supposed to have their own country, just because they are Arabs does not mean they have to absorbed by other Arab states, hosted a refugeees maybe but nothing more, it also dilutes the cause and would give israel another excuse not to give back what they have taken, they made big mistakes in that past though for sure for whatever reason.

And how about the 100 of thousands of Jews kicked out of the arab states?

Ha even when jordan occupied the west bank they wouldn give the "palestinians: citizenship/

777way · Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:00 am

What has that got to do with Palestinians not being absorbed into Arab countries? infact you should be celebrationg in secret at the fairness/unfairness of it, Jews out and Palestinians also not allowed in, other than refugee status Palestinians themselves should not go for nationality of any Arab country, because that is what the occupiers want them to do.

MD11Engineer · Tue Nov 01, 2011 9:16 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
If you want some real history, lets look back at the fact the Jewish people have been living on the lands going back 4,000 years.

Up until the Romans kicked most of them out, following the Judaeo-Roman wars.
Just that most of Europe used to be the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation a thousand years ago doesn´t give us claims to Sicily.

Jan

baroque · Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:12 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 10):
Have done a quick search and all I could find is this small article from Haaretz.
........

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...92666

Sounds like equal opportunity bastardry. Who was it that espoused an eye for an eye again???

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
And when they did, it was because of outside aggression.

Oh get a memory - Wiki 6 day war:
the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces.

777way · Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:37 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 10):
Have done a quick search and all I could find is this small article from Haaretz.

And even in that article, the figure mentioned is $900k and not a million as stated in by the OP.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...92666

Now link http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...pture-of-israeli-soldiers-1.392666

[Edited 2011-11-01 04:38:52]

LAXintl · Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:55 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 25):

Oh get a memory - Wiki 6 day war:
the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise air strikes against Arab forces.

Yes certainly. And why did Israel have to act?

On the weeks leading up to the attack Nasser Egypt had mobilization virtually its entire army into the Sinai while Syria and Jordan themselves were building up their deployment against Israeli borders. As we know now, the Arab intention and plan was to launch a massive multi-front attack on the State of Israel. This was confirmed at the time with Israeli intelligence sources high in the Egyptian and Syrian commands.

If you don't call that a provocation I don't know what would be.

So Israel cleverly surprised the Arabs with its own preemptive offensive which decimated the Arab forces (esp Egyptian).

baroque · Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:31 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 27):
So Israel cleverly surprised the Arabs with its own preemptive offensive which decimated the Arab forces

But do not try to tell us that Israel was attacked. Israel might have been attacked. The Arabs WERE attacked. It is called being honest you know.

BrouAviation · Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:10 pm

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 4):

It's a two way street and both are terrible.

Agreed, but the fact that a Prince deals with it the same way as some mentally deranged extremists on the other side is rather painful, don't you think?

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 9):
How about the extremists from the other side, should they not also be included on that list?

Yes, they should.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
Just that most of Europe used to be the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation a thousand years ago doesn´t give us claims to Sicily.

Well, it would be worth a try.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 28):

But do not try to tell us that Israel was attacked. Israel might have been attacked. The Arabs WERE attacked. It is called being honest you know.

Israel WOULD have been attacked. In Dutch we have a saying that the first blow is worth double money, and the Israeli's proved it.

And lets not forget it was the British Commonwealth that really stole the land from the Palestinians, please? They occupied it, promised the Jews they would get it, and when the moment came along they didn't fulfil their promise (one may wonder if they ever should have made it) and left both the Jews and Palestinians with an unsolvable conflict.

baroque · Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:17 pm

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 29):
forget it was the British Commonwealth that really stole the land from the Palestinians, please? They occupied it, promised the Jews they would get it, and when the moment came along they didn't fulfil their promise (one may wonder if they ever should have made it) and left both the Jews and Palestinians with an unsolvable conflict.

Sigh. Get back to us AFTER you have read the Balfour declaration and the Lord Montagu letter. You might like to read the Seven Pillars of Wisdom as well.

BrouAviation · Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:29 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 30):
Sigh. Get back to us AFTER you have read the Balfour declaration and the Lord Montagu letter.

I did. And more extensively than you might think. You seem to have the opinion the British have clean hands in this matter? I will get myself a copy of the Seven Pillars of Wisdom by the way.

baroque · Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:56 pm

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 31):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 30):
Sigh. Get back to us AFTER you have read the Balfour declaration and the Lord Montagu letter.

I did. And more extensively than you might think.

OK well what part of
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
presents a problem if it were to have been followed? CIVIL and RELIGIOUS rights. What does that not include? And note where it is - PALESTINE. This place that apparently to some others never existed.

There is a much more aggressive communication from Balfour after he resigned and of course he did not actually draft the "Balfour declaration". But that later communication had no standing in relation to the mandate that I know of.

And there is the Lord MONTAGUE letter
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15584.htm
That includes the following:
Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom.
.....
I lay down with emphasis four principles:

1. I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my
family, for instance, who have been in this country for
generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of
desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact
that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion.
It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish
Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian
Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of
the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries -
through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race.
The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through
the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they
certainly do not belong to the same nation.

2. When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home,
every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish
citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out
its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country, drawn
from all quarters of the globe, speaking every language on the
face of the earth, and incapable of communicating with one another
except by means of an interpreter. I have always understood that
this was the consequence of the building of the Tower of Babel, if
ever it was built, and I certainly do not dissent from the view,
commonly held, as I have always understood, by the Jews before
Zionism was invented, that to bring the Jews back to form a nation
in the country from which they were dispersed would require Divine
leadership. I have never heard it suggested, even by their most
fervent admirers, that either Mr. Balfour or Lord Rothschild would
prove to be the Messiah.

BrouAviation · Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:19 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 32):

I don't want to dwell off-topic, but what gave the Balfour declaration its legitimacy in the first place? I'd say it was the British occupation of Palestine..?
The Jews base their views on 4000 years of proven history. I don't want to debate wether that is legit or not. But the Brits thinking they had any authority about whether or not Jews should have a place in Palestine for themselves, just because they pushed the Ottomans out of the area bears the suspicious smell of colonialism from ancient times.

If you want to discuss this further, I suggest we do this through PM as it isn't really on topic?

baroque · Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:29 pm

Nothing to do with colonialism, and everything to do with getting loans from the Rothschilds.

And timing.

Balfour declaration was before the results of the charge at Beersheba were apparent and Sykes-Picot long before that.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:29 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 28):
But do not try to tell us that Israel was attacked. Israel might have been attacked. The Arabs WERE attacked. It is called being honest you know.

Arabs were the aggressors.

Israel had no reason to tangle with Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and their backup support from places like Iraq if the Arabs did not have hostile intent.

Its very naive to think a nation, State of Israel or other will sit by watching your neighbors mass up their entire armies against your borders without a response.
Israel smartly ended up turning the tables and surprised the Arabs with its lightning response.

baroque · Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:56 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 35):
Arabs were the aggressors.

I will just go back to reading Through the Looking-Glass.

777way · Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:14 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
Honorable PM

How is he honourable? or is this what society has come down to now as far as labelling people is concerned.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net