"Wahhabism condemns Christians, Jews and all other non Muslims, as well as non Wahhabi Muslims. Wahhabists believe it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews."
"Wahhabism is a fiercely fundamentalist form of orthodox Sunni Islam. After a brief examination of its tenets it is clear that it is one of division, domination and hate."
"Wahhabism originated circa 1703 and is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists believe that any and all evolution of the Islamic faith after the 3rd century of the Muslim era – after 950 A.D. – was specious and must be expunged. Consequently, Wahhabism is the form of Islam that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri practice."
US Supreme Court declines to hear case of 9/11 families
By Joe Kishore
30 June 2009
The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case brought by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia, four members of the Saudi royal family, a Saudi bank and a charity. The action lets stand a lower court ruling that the Saudi members cannot be held liable in US courts.
The Obama administration supported the Saudi monarchs, who
were accused of financially supporting several of the individuals
involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The administration
last month intervened to ask the high court to reject the appeal.
The family members claim that Saudi princes contributed to charities that funded Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers.
In August 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 district court ruling that the Saudi officials and entities were protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The families argued that lower courts had made conflicting rulings on the scope of sovereign immunity, and that the Supreme Court should therefore intervene.
The Justice Department has sought furiously to prevent the release of documents assembled by lawyers for the families, which, according to a New York Times report, “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” The government has had copies of the documents destroyed and has sought to prevent judges from even looking at them.
The US government has worked systematically to conceal from the American people evidence of Saudi support for at least two of the hijackers, part of a broader cover-up of the many unanswered questions that still surround the 9/11 attacks.
The documents gathered by the 9/11 families—including a classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into the attacks—likely include material on Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two Saudi nationals who were aboard the planes that crashed on 9/11. They were known by US intelligence to be members of Al Qaeda at least since 1999.
Despite their previous association, the two men were allowed into the US, where they found accommodations with the help of a Saudi intelligence agent (Omar al-Bayoumi) and, later, an FBI asset (Abdussattar Shaikh). Al-Bayoumi received financing from Princess Haifa, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar.
The suit filed by the families focuses solely on the role of Saudi Arabia. However, the more fundamental question is the role of sections of the American state. The Saudi royal family has had long and intimate ties with American intelligence, and the broader exposure of Saudi links to the attacks threatens to unravel the entire official story of the September 11 attacks.
Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families
By Barry Grey
26 June 2009
The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.
According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.
The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.
Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.
Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”
Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.
Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”
He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.
What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?
The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.
But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.
Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.
The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.
The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.
The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.
However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.
He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi supportî for at least some of the hijackers was ìincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.
The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.
Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.
After landing in Los Angeles in January of 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were met by Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority. US investigators have concluded that al-Bayoumi was a Saudi intelligence agent.
Al-Bayoumi invited the pair to move to San Diego, where he found them an apartment, provided them with money and helped enroll them in flight school.
It has been reported that al-Bayoumi served as a conduit for thousands of dollars in funding for the future hijackers sent by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a close confidante of the Bush family.
Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar lived openly in the US, one of them even having his name listed in the telephone directory.
Within months, al-Hazmi moved into the home of Abdussattar Shaikh, a retired professor at San Diego State University. Shaikh was on the FBI payroll, charged with monitoring the activities of Islamist groups in the San Diego region.
In his book, Graham wrote that the FBI concealed from the joint congressional committee the fact that its paid informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, had established a close personal relationship with the two hijackers.
When the committee staff discovered Shaikh’s role and the committee issued a subpoena to question him under oath, the FBI and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to serve the subpoena. Graham said that a senior FBI official wrote to him and the Republican co-chair of the joint committee declaring that the administration would neither allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on Shaikh nor allow the committee staff to interview him.
Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”
Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.
In his book, Graham himself posed the question of why the congressional committee was denied access to the San Diego FBI informant. After offering several possible answers, he suggested in deliberately obscure language a “far more damning possibility”—“perhaps the informant did know something about the plot that would be even more damaging were it revealed, and that this is what the FBI is trying to conceal.”
Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.
Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?
That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.
Is Saudi Arabia Waging Resource Aggression Against the American People and the World Economy?!?
Posted November 8, 200
Imagine waking up to the following nightmare headline "Canada Interdicts the Head Waters of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and All Water Flows From Its Territory Into the Great Lakes." One's reaction would not be passive nor that of our government to such a blatant act of resource aggression. And if you permit a glib interjection, any argumentation that , "well its water on their side of the border" would hold no water whatsoever. The deterioration of relations between the United States and Canada would be immediate, grave, and threatening.
Yet in degree, this is the current status of our resource relationship with the Saudis. Consider the following. On March 5, 2007 in a first page article "Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells", the New York Times reported that Nansen G. Saleri, the head of reservoir management at the state owned Saudi Aramco reported that Saudi Arabia's total reserves were almost three times higher than the kingdom's officially published figure of 260 billion barrels. He estimated the kingdom's resources at 716 billion barrels. Mr. Saleri continued that he wouldn't be surprised if ultimate reserves of Saudi Arabia reached a trillion, (1,000,000,000,000) barrels!
This amazing revelation coming from the reservoir manager of Aramco underlines the degree to which the Saudis have perverted the current world oil market. The Saudis are the putative leaders of OPEC and their capabilities and objectives determine OPEC's policy goals. It is clear as the International Energy Agency phrased it in their recent report, "The greater the increase in the call of oil and gas...the more likely it will be that they will seek a higher rent from their exports and to impose higher prices ... by deferring investment and constraining production."
Saudi Arabia, given its enormous reserves, could readily produce significant additional quantities of oil in order to abate the steep run up of oil prices. At these price levels the fact they and OPEC are maintaining the major portion of their production cuts made at the beginning of this year (OPEC's production cut of 1.7 million barrels/day altered by a production increase of only 500,000 barrels/day starting this month) is smoking gun evidence of their extortionist intent. By holding oil off the market, oil which they clearly have in ample supply, they are gouging the world's economies, pricing their product at levels that have no market rationale whatsoever. They are preying on the world's need for oil. It is an act of resource aggression against the world's consumers much as Canada's hypothetical interference with the headwaters of our major river ways would be an act of aggression against the United States.
Please note in my title I referred to waging resource aggression against the American people. The government was not mentioned because in this imbroglio our administration is in effect Saudi Arabia's, as well as OPEC's and the oil patch's greatest ally. In the near seven years of its Presidency, virtually nothing has been done to constrain Saudi Arabia's policies. On the contrary our President and Vice President are so wedded to the oil industry's interests that the enormous increase in oil prices during their tenure can well be ascribed to willful lack of any forceful policies to counter the Saudi extortion. This has manifested itself in many ways.
Let me just cite a few:
In the near seven years of the Bush presidency, virtually no serious steps have been taken to significantly abate demand for fossil fuels;
The nations Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been used to underpin escalating prices by continuing purchases even as prices exploded, thereby signaling the governments acceptance and approval of these price levels, and worse by declaring the doubling of the Reserve just as crude oil prices were retreating to $50/bbl earlier this year.
Neither through "friendly persuasion" nor as a Dutch Uncle, making Saudi Arabia understand its price and production policies are intolerable. This even though we are in essence the guarantors of last resort of Saudi Arabia's independence as evidenced by the some $100 million dollars a day being expended from this nation's treasury on our naval flotilla stationed off the Saudi Coast in the Arabian Gulf thereby serving as a bulwark against Shia Iran that without our presence would have designs and capabilities against Sunni Saudi Arabia;
By the fawning obsequiousness our high government officials have shown toward Saudi officialdom, (see "The Price of Oil, OPEC and Our Laws and Now Welcome to Vichy" 5.4.06) or be it Price Bandar's open access to the Oval Office while he was Ambassador in Washington and thereafter.
Or as exemplified by the symbolic holding of then Price Abdullah's hand at the Crawford Ranch meeting (see "Cheney in Saudi Land, Don't Hold Abdullah's Hand" 01.16.06; and "President Bush's Most Respectful Letter to King Abdullah on Energy Cooperation" 06.22.06 ) whose coziness resulted in an almost immediate upward ratcheting of oil prices.
The administration's oil industry buddies are ecstatic at the windfall the entire oil sector has reaped by the quadrupling of oil prices to levels undreamed of before the advent of this Presidency, while many of the nations citizens are having their household budgets ripped to shreds in order to meet their home heating bills this coming winter. Rarely if ever in the history of the Republic has there been such a divergence between the nation's interests and those of the vested interests that formed this administration.
ISLAMOFASCIST that Bush protects and kisses up to!
follow the money.... right into the presidential libraries of BUSH, CLINTON and OBAMA!
UNDERSTANDING WAHHABIST INFILTRATION OF AMERICA
November 05, 2007
Understanding the Wahhabist Infiltration of America
Part of the reason many Americans don’t appreciate the significance of Osama bin Laden’s declarations of war against the United States and the West is because they are completely oblivious to the in roads radical Islam has made within the United States. Radical Islamists (i.e., Islamofascists, Wahhabis) understand that the conflict must take place on multiple fronts: militarily, economically, diplomatically and ideologically. Because they understand the complexity of the confrontation and the ability of the West to adapt to challenges – albeit lethargically – they employ multiple tactics in their aggressive pursuit of victory. The West’s addiction to sensationalism, epitomized by our limited attention to detail, unless it plays in the superficial 24 hour news cycle, facilitates the successful infiltration of radical ideology into Western society.
Much to the chagrin of the multicultural and the proponents of diversity, those who promote radical Islamist ideology thrive on the fact that the politically correct culture of the West – and the United States in particular – deems it inappropriate to question religious practices or teachings. With this politically correct “wall of separation” in place little if any scrutiny is given to the information disseminated within any given religious institution. This directly facilitates the ideological advancement of Wahhabism, the most radical and puritanical form of Islam, within the mosques of the United States.
To accurately understand the depth of infiltration of the Wahhabist ideology on American soil we need to examine the ideology and how it is advanced within the United States.
Wahhabism is a fiercely fundamentalist form of orthodox Sunni Islam. After a brief examination of its tenets it is clear that it is one of division, domination and hate.
Wahhabism originated circa 1703 and is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists believe that any and all evolution of the Islamic faith after the 3rd century of the Muslim era – after 950 A.D. – was specious and must be expunged. Consequently, Wahhabism is the form of Islam that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri practice.
This radically fundamentalist dogma is fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and lends itself to serve as the catalyst for much of the Islamofascist aggression being perpetrated around the world. It is a wrathful doctrine that rejects the legitimacy of all religious philosophy but its own. Wahhabism condemns Christians, Jews and all other non Muslims, as well as non Wahhabi Muslims. Wahhabists believe it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews.
It stresses a worldview in which there exist two opposing realms that can never be reconciled Dar al Islam, or House of Islam, and Dar al Har, or House of War, also referred to as Dar al Kufr, House of the Infidel. When Muslims are in the Dar al Har, they must behave as if they were operatives in a conflict who have been tasked with going behind enemy lines. The Wahhabist ideology permits Muslims to exist “behind enemy lines” for only a few reasons: to acquire knowledge, to make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or to proselytize the infidels in an effort to convert them to Islam.
Wahhabist doctrine specifically warns Muslims not to imitate, befriend or help “infidels” in any way. It instills hatred for United States because we are ruled by legislated constitutional law rather than by tyrannical Sharia law. Wahhabists are instructed by edict to, above all, work for the creation of an Islamic state where ever they may dwell.
It is because of the Wahhabist ideology’s cruel and unyielding fanaticism that we in the United States should be concerned with its prevalence within the mosques of our nation.
After the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 – an unprecedented action by the fundamentalists of the Shi’ite sect, the Saudi Arabian government responded by coming to terms with the fundamentalist Wahhabist movement of the Sunni sect. The Saudis, in return for a declaration of non aggression, began to finance the construction of mosques in countries around the world. An estimated $45 billion has been spent by the Saudis to finance the building and operational costs of mosques and Islamic schools in foreign countries, including in North America.
Through the funding of mosques, Islamic Centers and their operations, Saudi Arabia is exporting the Wahhabist ideology. It is not unusual to find that the presiding cleric in any given mosque within the United States is a Wahhabist and that his teachings have been sanctioned and financed by the Saudi government and vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Two of the more predominant mosques in the United States that have received funding from the Saudi government, and that adhere to the Wahhabist ideology, are the al Farooq mosque in Brooklyn, New York, and the King Fahd mosque in Los Angeles, California. Both mosques welcomed a number of the hijackers who piloted the planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001.
In 2005, Freedom House, a 501(c)(3) organization concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, released a report titled, Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques. This examination of a comprehensive sampling of mosques and Islamic Centers across America shows that literature available in an overwhelming number of them indicates deference for the Wahhabist ideology.
Among some of the edicts – or fatwas – issued through this literature:
?? “[I]t is basic Islam to believe that everyone who does not embrace Islam is an unbeliever, and must be called an unbeliever, and that they are enemies to Allah, his Prophet and believers.”
?? “[O]ur doctrine states that if you accept any religion other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable, you become an unbeliever. If you do not repent, you are an apostate and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran.”
?? “Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”
?? “Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never befriend an infidel unless it is to convert him. Never imitate the infidel. Never work for an infidel. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel.”
?? “Those who reside in the land of unbelief out of their own choice and desire to be with the people of that land, accepting the way they are regarding their faith, or giving compliments to them, or pleasing them by pointing out something wrong with the Muslims, they become unbelievers and enemies to Allah and his messenger.”
?? “To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government. The military education is glued to faith and its meaning, and the duty to follow it.”
With this ideology being taught in mosques across America, there is little reason for speculating as to why hatred exists for American principles, culture and ideology not only within the Islamic community, but among the societally disenfranchised and ideologically vulnerable in the United States who are being indoctrinated into this radical form of Islam.
This brings to the forefront a bothersome question. Why aren’t those of the American Fifth Column, who are predisposed to seeking out the haters among us, calling out the Wahhabist bigots who preach their hate in American mosques?
We in the West – and especially in the United States – must immediately seek out a greater understanding of not only the basic elements of the threat of radical Islam, but the extent to which it has already infiltrated our society. If we continue to remain ignorant of the facts surrounding this very real war against our way of life, we will lose our nation with nary a shot being fired.
Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques
Basics Project: Terrorism – Ideology
Basics Project: Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam
We will make it clear that we consider Saudi Arabia withholding oil from world markets an unfriendly act and if our actions in turn result in Iranian hegemony of the Persian/Arabian Gulf, so be it. This with the clear eyed understanding that given Saudi actions our relations with the Iranians can not be worse then they are in actuality with the Saudis, and at some levels, as on a people to people basis, decidedly better. One need only read the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's report released last week highlighting Saudi Arabia's egregious violations of religious rights and lack of progress on efforts to halt the exportation of extremist ideology and continued practices violating the rights at home of minority Shiite Muslims, non Muslim religious groups and women.
SAUDI LARGEST CONTINGENT OF FOREIGN INSURGENTS/SUICIDE BOMBERS IN IRAQ
Or yesterday's lead story in the NYTimes that the Saudi's are the largest contingent by far of foreign insurgents/suicide bombers in Iraq and that according to American military officials "Saudi citizens provide the majority of financing for Al Queda in Mesopotania." And not to be forgotten, the fifteen Saudi citizens on those planes.
Given their behavior, it is the time to end our supplicant relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is time for government to act!
Raymond J. Learsy is the author of the updated Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip On Our Future.