1979 Seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca

1979 Seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca The seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979 is a seminal event in the evolution of Islamist terrorism. Yet the seizure is mostly a footnote in contemporary history. It shouldnt be. The Grand Mosque in Mecca is a massive, 7-acre compound that can accommodate some 1 million worshippers at any one time, especially during the annual hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca centered on circling the sacred Kaaba in the heart of the Grand Mosque. The marble mosque in its current shape is the result of a 20-year, $18 billion renovation project began in 1953 by the House of Saud, the ruling monarchy in Saudi Arabia, which considers itself the guardian and custodian of the Arab Peninsula’s holiest sites, the Grand Mosque topmost among them. The monarchy’s contractor of choice was the Saudi Bin Laden Group, led by the man who in 1957, became the father of Osama bin Laden. The Grand Mosque, however, first came to wide Western attention on November 20, 1979. Coffins as Weapons Cache: Seizure of the Grand Mosque At 5 that morning, the final day of the hajj, Sheikh Mohammed al-Subayil, imam of the Grand Mosque, was preparing to address 50,000 worshipers through a microphone inside the mosque. Among the worshipers, what looked like mourners bearing coffins on their shoulders and wearing headbands made their way through the crowd. It wasnt an unusual sight. Mourners often brought their dead for a blessing at the mosque. But they had no mourning in mind. Sheikh Mohammed al-Subayil was shoved aside by men who took machine guns from beneath their robes, fired them in the air and at a few policemen nearby, and yelled to the crowd that â€Å"The Mahdi has appeared!† Mahdi is the Arabic word for messiah. The mourners set their coffins down, opened them up, and produced an arsenal of weaponry that they then brandished and fired at the crowd. That was only part of their arsenal. An Attempted Overthrow by a Would-Be Messiah The attack was led by Juhayman al-Oteibi, a fundamentalist preacher and former member of the Saudi National Guard, and Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani, who claimed to be the Mahdi. The two men openly called for a revolt against the Saudi monarchy, accusing it of having betrayed Islamic principles and sold out to western countries. The militants, who numbered close to 500, were well armed, their weapons, in addition to their coffin arsenal, having been stashed gradually in the days and weeks before the assault in small chambers beneath the Mosque. They were prepared to lay siege to the mosque for a long time. The siege lasted two weeks, though it did not end before a bloodbath in underground chambers where militants had retreated with hundreds of hostagesand bloody repercussions in Pakistan and Iran. In Pakistan, a mob of Islamist students enraged by a false report that the United States was behind the mosque seizure, attacked the American embassy in Islamabad and killed two Americans. Irans Ayatollah Khomeini called the attack and the murders a great joy, and also blamed the seizure on the United States and Israel. In Mecca, Saudi authorities considered attacking the hold-outs without regard for the hostages. Instead, Prince Turki, the youngest son of King Faisal and the man in charge of reclaiming the Grand Mosque, summoned a French secret service officer, Count Claude Alexandre de Marenches, who recommended that the hold-outs be gassed unconscious. Indiscriminate Killing As Lawrence Wright describes it in The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, A team of three French commandos from the Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN) arrived in Mecca. Because of the prohibition against non-Muslims entering the holy city, they converted to Islam in a brief, formal ceremony. The commandos pumped gas into the underground chambers, but perhaps because the rooms were so bafflingly interconnected, the gas failed and the resistance continued.With casualties climbing, Saudi forces drilled holes into the courtyard and dropped grenades into the rooms below, indiscriminately killing many hostages but driving the remaining rebels into more open areas where they could be picked off by sharpshooters. More than two weeks after the assault began, the surviving rebels finally surrendered. At dawn on Jan. 9, 1980, in the public squares of eight Saudi cities, including Mecca, 63 Grand Mosque militants were beheaded by sword on orders of the king. Among the condemned, 41 are Saudi, 10 from Egypt, 7 from Yemen (6 of them from what was then South Yemen), 3 from Kuwait, 1 from Iraq and 1 from the Sudan. Saudi authorities report that 117 militants died as a result of the siege, 87 during the fighting, 27 in hospitals. Authorities also noted that 19 militants received death sentences that were later commuted to life in prison. Saudi security forces suffered 127 deaths and 451 wounded. Were the bin Ladens Involved? This much is known: Osama bin Laden would have been 22 at the time of the attack. He would have likely heard Juhayman al-Oteibi preach. The Bin Laden Group was still heavily involved in the renovation of the Grand Mosque: the company’s engineers and workers had open access to the mosque’s grounds, Bin Laden trucks were inside the compound frequently, and bin Laden workers were familiar with the compound’s every recess: they built some of them. It would be a stretch, however, to assume that because the bin Ladens were involved in construction, they were also involved in the attack. What’s also known is that the company shared all maps and layouts they had of the mosque with authorities to facilitate the Saudi Special Forces’ counter-attack. It would not have been in the bin Laden Group’s interest, enriched as it had become almost exclusively through Saudi government contracts, to aid the regime’s opponents. Just as certainly, what Juhayman al-Oteibi and the â€Å"Mahdi† were preaching, advocating and rebelling against is almost word for word, eye for an eye, what Osama bin Laden would preach and advocate subsequently. The Grand Mosque takeover was not an al-Qaeda operation by any means. But it would become an inspiration, and a stepping stone, to al-Qaeda less than a decade and a half later.

A List of Arguments For and Against Zoos

A List of Arguments For and Against Zoos Not all animal rights activists love animals. Some respect them because they understand animals have a place in the world. Zoos, especially the ones that are doing everything right, present a special challenge to the animal-loving advocates because they would like to see and interact with the animals. Zoos and Animal Rights Zoo advocates argue that they save endangered species and educate the public, but many  animal rights activists believe the costs outweigh the benefits, and the violation of the rights of the individual animals is unjustifiable. Roadside zoos, petting zoos, and smaller animal exhibitors tend to offer inadequate space for the animals, keeping them in pens or cages. Sometimes, barren concrete and metal bars are all a tiger or bear will know for their entire lives. Larger, accredited zoos try to distance themselves from these operations by touting how well the animals are treated, but to animal rights activists, the issue not how well the animals are treated, but whether we have a right to confine them for our amusement or education. grass-lifeisgood / Getty Images Arguments For Zoos By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of the animals. This exposure and education motivate people to protect the animals.Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators.Many zoos also have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding.Reputable zoos are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and are held to high standards for the treatment of the animals. According to the AZA, accreditation means, official recognition and approval of a zoo or aquarium by a group of experts.A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.Zoos are a tradition, and a visit to a zoo is a wholesome, family activity.Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experienc e than seeing that animal in a nature documentary. Some would argue that humans have little, if any duty to non-human animals because humans are more important, and if keeping animals in zoos serves any educational or entertainment purposes, it serves a purpose to the humans, even if that purpose is not beneficial for the animals.Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or are no longer able to care for.Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for care. Long Zhiyong / Getty Images Arguments Against Zoos From an animal rights standpoint, we do not have a right to breed, capture and confine other animals, even if they are endangered. Being a member of an endangered species doesnt mean the individual animals have fewer rights.Animals in captivity suffer from stress, boredom, and confinement. Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals get sold or traded to other zoos, and no pen or even drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses, canned hunting facilities, and even for slaughter.Some zoos just kill their surplus animal outright.The vast majority of captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring are forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, petting zoos, and exotic pet trade that buy, sell and barter animals among themselves and exploit animals. Ned the Asian elephant was born at an accredited zoo, but later confiscated from an abusive circus trainer and finally sent to a sanctuary. Removing individuals from the wild will further endanger the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and will have more difficulty finding mates.If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.If zoos are teaching children anything, its that imprisoning animals for our own entertainment is acceptable.The argument that children will have more compassion animals they can see life does not hold water. Not one of todays children has ever seen a dinosaur, yet kids are crazy about them.At least one study has shown that elephants kept in zoos do not live as long as elephants in the wild.The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, ventilation, fencing , food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns. Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, will not free the animals. Sanctuaries also rehabilitate wildlife and take in unwanted exotic pets, without breeding, buying and selling animals like zoos do.Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. There have even been incidents of zoo animals eating other zoo animals. In the case of zoos, both sides will argue that their side saves animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they certainly do make money. As long as there is demand for zoos, they will continue to exist. We can start by making sure that zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals who are confined to them.