More Mesa

Paul Wellman

More Mesa

More Mesa Sold to Saudi

With Conservation-Development Deal in Limbo, Owner Sells Six Legal Parcels for $25 Million

Originally published 4:00 p.m., December 18, 2012
Updated 2:13 p.m., December 19, 2012
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

The 265 privately owned acres that compose the bulk of More Mesa ​— ​a coastal bluff-top open space between Goleta and Santa Barbara popular with hikers, bikers, gliders, beachgoers, and nature lovers ​— ​have been sold for $25 million, according to the County Assessor’s Office.

The buyer is listed as Khalid Saud Al Shobily LLC, a prominent Saudi Arabian real estate investment group headed by Khalid Bin Saud Al Shobily. Attempts to contact Shobily have not yet been successful, but there is already wild speculation about what the company plans to do with the property, which includes six legal parcels.

The property has been owned for nearly 30 years by Robert Earl Holding, owner of Salt Lake City–based Sinclair Oil and developer of Idaho’s Sun Valley ski resort, who purchased it for $6.7 million in 1984. Over the years, the Holding family pursued various development proposals, including a plan offered by a Santa Barbara team this past summer to conserve 85 percent of the area while erecting 38 homes. That plan ​— ​spearheaded by developer Jack Theimer (responsible for Goleta’s Storke Ranch, Montecito’s Ennisbrook, and Colorado’s Beaver Creek), environmentally minded attorney Kim Kimbell, and real estate agent Stephen Hawkins ​— ​met with some neighborhood opposition and failed to make the traction required to keep the Holding family interested in the deal.

More Mesa
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman (file)

More Mesa

But Stephen Holding, Robert’s son, explained that he had “extensive discussions” with Shobily regarding the Theimer team’s plan, that “the buyer has expressed their intention to continue working” with them, but that “the buyer will not finalize their intentions until they have an opportunity to more fully review the proposed plan as well as other options.” Said Holding, “Having owned the property for over 25 years, we feel some sadness to no longer be part of this beautiful piece of land, but we are confident that it will be developed in a way which will benefit all involved.”

Neighbors who supported the conservation-with-development idea were dismayed by the sale, fearing that the new owner may develop the parcels as allowed and shut out the public as much as possible. “We had held out hope all along that there would be cooperation among the interested parties to work together for something that would benefit the whole community,” said Bonnie Freeman, a resident of the adjacent More Mesa Shores community, “and it’s very sad that did not happen.” She and others had met with the Theimer team a few times and had “felt it was a win-win situation to go forward,” so long as the proposal could be tweaked along the way. “It’s a disappointment, of course, as some of us fear that another proposal might come through that could potentially not allow the kind of public access and protection to the bluffs and the wildlife corridor,” explained Freeman in an email.

Many members of the More Mesa Preservation Coalition, however, never warmed to the conservation-plus-development plan, and some even consulted with the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) in anticipation of a legal battle. While disappointed that the acreage was advertised to the community as worth $35 million in the proposed deal but then sold to an out-of-town buyer for $10 million less, they aren’t scared that it will be developed overnight.

“We don’t know what the buyer’s plans are, but the restrictions on the property have not changed,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the EDC. “Whoever owns the property must comply with the county’s general plan and the Coastal Act. This means that development will be restricted, public access will be maintained, and the habitat areas which cover most of the property must be protected.” Krop said that the EDC and More Mesa Preservation Coalition remain interested in a deal to save the entire property from development.


Independent Discussion Guidelines


tacobellmike (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HAHAHAHA! Is he in for a rude awakening.

banjo (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe he will just put up gates and block off all access until he gets to develop his own property. It is weird that someone would even wasted their time purchasing a property with pplans to develop it around here anyway.

MSSB (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sold out by some Utah company who never cared to begin with. Unfortunate the buyer isn't communicating with the community/local media; I do think Banjo is correct.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The buyer has a better chance of getting hit on the head by the Hubble telescope than getting anything built on more Mesa.

Somewhere in Utah, somebody is laughing hysterically.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Using an online calculator, it looks like the Sinclairs got a rate of return of 4.8% per year on More Mesa based only on the buy/sell prices (doesn't include property taxes or other costs, tax breaks, write-offs, etc.).

Perhaps they could have done better putting the $6.7M into an S&P index fund.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

East..I'm guessing it was never meant to be a passive just worked out that way.

Mr Property Developer will soon understand why he got such a deal.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thats to bad plus anyone with a brain realizes that a large amount of it will undoubtably be getting fenced off soon.

pointssouth (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmmmm, feeling like we've lost our land to a foreigner? Check out this short video that may describe the feeling:
Tomorrow morning at 8 AM Pacific time there will be a reading of an apology to Native Americans in Washington DC. Why? The apology, sponsored by Senator Brownback (R) of Kansas, was buried in a Defense Appropriations bill where it was effectively hidden from the public and from those to whom the apology was intended.

fishingklamath (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Occupy More Mesa

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The good news is that the wealthy Hope Ranchers who live adjacent to the property don't want it developed either. On the other hand, Mr. Al-Shobily is probably aware that the land will likely not get developed anytime soon and will probably make a profit on it one way or the other.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm still wondering about the headline:
"More Mesa Sold to Saudi". If it had been sold to a citizen from our wonderful and successful southern neighbor would the headline been:
"More Mesa Sold to Mexican"? (of course the progressives would have had a field day pontificating about selling something back that was originally "stolen"...)

I'm sorta/kinda with KV, only more proactive: Get the Occupy Something crowd rabbled up again immediatly and have them take possession of More Mesa as a friendly "welcome to the neighborhood" greeting from SB. Are we sure the land IS NOT a Chumash burial ground?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

italiansurg: I dug up a few horse bones there when I was twelve (c. 1967). Perhaps they were Chumash horses!

tenoreleven (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Saudi's like large, protected family compounds. Perhaps they will build it out only as a family estate.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps on another Mesa.. lol!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

even his descendants will never see dirt moved on more mesa.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Most of the projects he works on are in the billion $$ range, $25 million is pocket change. I wonder if he even visited the property or maybe he just flew over it in his Gulfstream. Either way it will be years if not decades before anything gets built. And while Saudi Businessmen may be be big with money and ideas, they are short on patience.

CManSB (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To answer Italiansurg: I believe the Austin property of More Mesa is a protected Chumash burial ground.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Saudi Arabia sponsors terror thru their madrasas, schools throughout the region meant to instill and promote the extremist form of Islam known as the Wahabbi sect. Osama bin Laden was a Wahabbi Muslim who helped create many madrasas before he fell out of favor with the Saudi royal family.
They also sell a lot of oil.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And why do we give Saudi Arabia millions in foreign aid every years when their own elite spend millions on US real estate?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Strictly speaking, OBL was more a follower of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian, whose beliefs and political philosophy diverged quite a bit from the state-sponsored Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia.

You, of course, answered your second question with the last sentence of your previous comment.

zappa (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Zappa, additional detail is always important. I Googled the buyer Khalid Bin Saud Al Shobily. Not much available on him but seems he's a Saudi Ian Schrager (take that as compliment or not, but I wish I could go back in time to Studio 54). He might wish to put up a hotel. He developed something called "Skyscraper City" which is considered a success in SA.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is big money in Mexico and Carlos Slim is the world's wealthiest businessman. It would be good to see a headline showing Mexican wealth was getting invested in SB. Legal wealth that is; not just laundered drug money.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Local ownership is preferable.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess what folks.....the NIMBYites fighting what was a reasonable development of 38 homes and preservation of 85% of the parcel are going to be in for a rude awakening. Now, you are up against a Saudi BILLIONAIRE with more money than the City and County combined. With those kind of resources, I foresee a lot more than 38 homes going up. Once again, small/narrowminded folks screw it up for everyone.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The other concept here could also be correct, a large family compound with one home, albeit a 15,000 sq. ft. mansion.

BeachFan (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, the locals ate the rich here locally. We now have to out-source them.

Google earth Abu Dhabi and see the average size of a family compound the government gives each citizen. SBHA, take note.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ohhh this is gonna be good. Maybe they will piss off Wendy with a huge proposed development. Battle of the titans! Yeah, I am thinking the 38 homes was probably a better bet now with the open space. But, hey I would love to be wrong and open space prevail! A State or County park with a campground would be my first choice. :)

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bimbo, You want open space or a park there? Just buy it. Get a group together and see if they will accept your offer.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Saudis have got money to bribe any Public official, whether public or private; could anyone in Santa Barbara turn down a briefcase of 100K, $1K bills? These buyers who hold NO agreement to the people, will buy every Government Official that gets in their way or contact the US State Department to have the impass removed with extreme prejudice.
I said it before and I say it again, Money Talks, BS walks!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Local money also gets favors too - look no further than the staff buzz about the Garden Street Academy who was able to fly under any city regulatory control for years.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How do the people that believe this property should be open for their use plan to block a property owner from building a residential dwelling? I hope he blocks it all off and builds something really atrocious there just to make all of them realize if you don't pay for the property you don't get to use it for free any time you want. It was ridiculous that the last owners could not build because of these whiners.

MSSB (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oblati, if you sincerely feel the locals ate the rich then you must not be local. Locals have been pricegouged and overcharged rent for at least two decades now.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure he will donate the land for the greatest public good. Then it can be called the Shobily Family Preserve.

youknowhoo (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They need to build some bike trails or something out there. Except for the city doesn't want people to have fun or prosper and neither do the owners. Way to use the land for the good of the people. That beautiful place is just like everything else in America-sold and not American anymore. Besides, the region where the aquiring business is from is riddled with problems that need the investment from such people. It is a perfect example of how all societies lose. Hopefully they can all live like fat cats and not make things too much worse...

NewMillennium (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome to San-socialista Barbara, bedu.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't too Socialist for the working class, just rich hoteliers.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do the people that believe this property should be open for their use plan to block a property owner from building a residential dwelling? I hope he blocks it all off and builds something really atrocious there just to make all of them realize if you don't pay for the property you don't get to use it for free any time you want. It was ridiculous that the last owners could not build because of these whiners.

MSSB (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.

There are easement laws and also how development affects the neighbors. Also, it's not as though he needs the income generated by turning the neighborhood into a Goleta's version of the 405 freeway at rush hour. In other words, just because you're rich doesn't mean you get to always impose your will onto everyone else.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2012 at 3:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For the record, the plan was actually spearheaded by Stephen Hawkins, who has worked on this plan for the past 4 years. He brought Kim Kimball early into this, and Theimer just in the last year. However, Theimer is primarily the spokesman for the team.

With that being said. I think the owner got fed up with the opposition and trouble caused from NIMBY Valerie Olson. Now we face the unknown with the Saudi's. They could decide to use the already approved 70-home high-density plan which would not be good for Santa Barbara period, but good for their wallets. Or maybe they will contract "Theimer's group" and proceed with the conservative development plan. God only knows.

JJBall (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2012 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Private property rights are very American.

Long tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence regarding property rights came with the US form of government. This formed a major component of America's uniqueness when compared to other countries where the "crown" owned the land.

Experiments at large state collective ownership (by the people) have failed wherever tried, though it can remain as a tribal tradition in smaller, less developed areas of the world.

US property rights are not absolute. With proper due process they can be impacted by the public will through written and noticed regulations.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The National Parks seem pretty successful, we all own those..

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2012 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "state" in fact owns a good deal of land, but they are not the primary owners of all the land. And what they do own is managed by the public process.

Quite different from the arbitrary "crown" both owning all the land and dictating the terms of use.

Land ownership, land use, land protections and that illusive concept of irredentism have driven much of history and continue to do so today.

Look no further than the Hobbit in current media lore - return of the homeland to the Dwarves - irredentism in action with all the attendant blood and gore this so often entails. (Pun intended)

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 21, 2012 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe Michael Douglas can appeal to the inner mensch in Shobily to donate the land to UCSB for high density student housing. No reason the Hope Ranchers should be denied the joy of overcrowding and property value damage that all of Goleta has to suffer. You know, for the kids and all...

sa1 (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2012 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do supermaterialistic people hate Academia? Without Academia they'd have nothing!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2012 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What does supermaterialistic mean? Do superacademians hate materialism also? Sounds like you think academian products should be free then, right? Else they be tainted by materialism. I think that would be a great way to solve Cali budget problems. All academians should provide their service for free...Be sure and press that issue as often as you can KV!

sa1 (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2012 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like a great idea sa1, especially when you consider the UC system was once free for all Cali residents. Til St. Reagan that is.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2012 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Long live auto-didactism. Seems we have a few stellar achievers amongst us who rejected academia as a barrier to their own financial successes: Gates, Jobs come to mind first.

Yes sa1 you are correct. When academia became super-materialistic, they traded their frayed elbow patches for BMW and Porsches. Ever look at the faculty parking lots these days?

Nice to see our tax dollars at work -- and outsourcing those dollars to foreign auto manufacturers as well. Is America a great country, or what?

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 23, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Recall 19 of 20 Al Queada murderers on 911 were SAUDI's.
Stupid ass Americans.

khiggler (anonymous profile)
December 24, 2012 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

16 million Saudi nationals live in Saudi Arabia - 19 very bad eggs among them. Do the math.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2012 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, let's cut to the core. If this land gets developed you can kiss "goodbye" to any semblance of "quality of life" for Goleta. There is a reason why people in the 60's--TRUE progressives started talking about birth control. (no disrespect to Catholics, Mormons, and Quiverfills,--but the term "Carrying Capacity rings true)

I've watched the cancer of L.A. spread northward, and ostensibly I can blame developers, and while developers certainly have shown on many an occasion that they couldn't care less about the effect their decisions have on the locals, they DO fill the need to accomadate our ever-exploding population. (Just look at population charts and you'll find that c.1930 the numbers started to rocket)

There is also the issue of property rights. What to do?...

All I can suggest is that someone or some group of people interested in preserving this land once and for all (ahem--Oprah or some other entertainment industry Progressive) buy the land and preserve it. That way, the quality of life is preserved, and no property rights are violated. Why hasn't that happened? (No really, I truly don't understand why)

Oh and by the way, stow the bigotry, random hatred of Saudis/Muslims is irrelevant to the story line.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2012 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's cut to the core of Saudi Arabia and human rights. A place where a woman is sentenced to ten lashes for driving a car; and a man sentenced to five years in a harsh prison for starting a human rights organization. Exactly what kind of government is afraid of a human rights org? A tyranny, this one based on an extremist form of Islam: Wahhabbism.
I know nothing about the buyer of More mesa but I'd be more impressed if those millions had gone to help Saudis victimized by their government than buying high priced real estate.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 26, 2012 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KV, once you clean up the massive domestic violence against women right here in the US, you can then stand in judgement about your cartoon visions of other countries treatment of women.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Statistics on the prevalence of the problem indicate that domestic violence is a worldwide epidemic. Studies show that between one quarter and one half of all women in the world have been abused by intimate partners. Worldwide, 40-70% of all female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner."

This is not state-sponsored.

However, the following is state sponsored:

"Saudi Arabia has been accused of behaving like Big Brother after introducing technology that alerts male "guardians" by text whenever women under their guardianship leave the country.

The kingdom already bans women from driving and excludes them from most workplaces. It also disapproves of women's sport. Since last week it has been operating a new electronic system that tracks all cross-border movements.

The system functions even if a woman is travelling with her husband or male "guardian", with a text sent immediately to the man. Saudi women must get formal approval from their guardians to travel abroad, and have to hand in an infamous "yellow slip", signed by a male, at the airport or border."

I thank my lucky stars every day that I do not live in a country that does not allow a woman to reach her full potential - which this country does more than any other in the world.Yes, it is not perfect. Yes, there is non-government sponsored abuse of all kinds by less than 1/4 of the population - and needs to be addressed. But the remaining number live freely, unlike Saudi women where 100% are oppressed to the point of being treated like prisoners.

Btw, crime is decreasing in this country and can probably be attributed to the population maturing in a free society where better choices are being made. "Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape and robbery all going down, although crime remains a serious problem in many urban areas, the FBI said on Monday."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2012 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oblati supports a Taliban like government I guess?
I suppose they also approve of billions in US foreign aid to the oil rich nation who's royal family has an undisclosed income while they also have the highest poverty rate in the Middle East.
And thanks for the additional info Tabatha.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2012 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As for keeping one's nose in one's backyard, I sure hope Oblati had the same message for the House of Saud when they sent in troops to crush Pro-Democracy demonstrations in Bahrain and Yemen.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2012 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oblati supports driving fuel thrifty cars and no more than 55 mph.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2012 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew it was impossible for Oblati to be all bad ;)

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2012 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Back in the '80's it was reported to me by a reliable source that three bare-breasted women were seen walking down More Mesa beach with their faces covered by the chadors Muslim women wear in the Middle East. No joke.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 27, 2012 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chadors make good sunscreens. Life on the Arabian desert is harsh, plus hiding women from marauding bands can help prevent transmission of diseases for which there were no cures that were introduced into the tribe by rape. Put life in local context, before you condemn tribal practices. Do not confuse tribal practice with the tenants of any one religion.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's a great article in the current issue of the New York Review of Books on the modern history of Saudi Arabia, and its future.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Tuareg also live in harsh conditions in the desert, and the rules for headgear for men is stricter than those for women. I also admire the participation of women in their music. But, to be clear, there are different Tuareg tribes who have different customs. Their dress was mostly designed for protection against sand storms and the heat of the sun. There are a variety of cultures in the desert, all with different cultures. But the youngsters in most of these countries want to participate in more modern practices. I have read many blogs from those areas, and those who speak and write English mostly do it far better than many here.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"There are a variety of cultures in the desert, all with different cultures" What a dumb sentence. Meant to state "customs".

tabatha (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article I referenced above states that only the "Lower Third" of Saudi Arabia is what you would call harsh conditions. It is fact called "The Lower Third".
The pictures below will surprise you, it's not a barren wasteland.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Hindukush area is harsh and has been at the cross-roads of marauding armies for eons. Protecting women and children was essential. Tribal customs grew out of their geographic vulnerability that make sense in their historic context; but can be judged inhumane by ours.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Oblati for mentioning the Hindukush region is a 500 mile long mountain range that stretches from Afghanistan thru Pakistan, as well as parts of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and slivers of India and China but not Saudi Arabia.

The following is from:

"In Saudi Arabia the Taliban’s push for a pristine Islamic society was in accord with the Saudi’s strict form of Wahhabi theology and law. Saudi Arabia bankrolled the madrassas in Pakistan that provided an ideological guide for the Taliban. A great deal of uncertainty remains about the extent of Saudi Arabia’s assistance to the Taliban but the consensus appears to be that their aid was largely financial."

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want more specificity about what (quote) "Muslim women wear in the Middle East" (unquote): look no further than this:

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want to see what Australians wear to the beach, look no further than the Coolibar Ultra Sports Hat:

The similarities to the prior report about "what Muslim women wear in the Middle East" are quite remarkable.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone is disputing the value of protecting one's skin from ultraviolet rays. How does a tracking device prevent skin cancer?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 28, 2012 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: