Obama administration continues to block report on Saudi financing of 9/11 attacks
OBAMA HAS SQUANDERED BILLIONS and
BILLIONS PROTECTING THE BORDERS OF MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS WHILE HE DAILY
SABOTAGES AMERICAN BORDERS TO BUILD HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS!
Cash Flow to Terrorists Evades U.S.
Efforts
WASHINGTON
— Nine years after the United States vowed to shut down the money pipeline that
finances terrorism, senior Obama administration officials say they believe that
many millions of dollars are flowing largely unimpeded to extremist groups
worldwide, and they have grown frustrated by frequent resistance from allies in
the Middle East, according to secret diplomatic dispatches.
The
government cables, sent by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and
senior State Department officials, catalog a list of methods that American
officials suspect terrorist financiers are using, including a brazen bank
robbery in Yemen last year, kidnappings for ransom, the harvesting of drug
proceeds in Afghanistan and fund-raising at religious pilgrimages to Mecca,
where millions of riyals or other forms of currency change hands.
While
American officials have publicly been relatively upbeat about their progress in
disrupting terrorist financing, the internal State Department cables, obtained
by WikiLeaks and made available to
several news organizations, offer a more pessimistic account, with blunt
assessments of the threats to the United States from money flowing to militants
affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba and
other groups.
A
classified memo sent by Mrs. Clinton last December made it clear that residents
of Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, all allies of the United States, are the chief
financial supporters of many extremist activities. “It has been an ongoing
challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating
from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority,” the cable said, concluding that
“donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to
Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”
The
dispatch and others offered similarly grim views about the United Arab Emirates
(“a strategic gap” that terrorists can exploit), Qatar (“the worst in the
region” on counterterrorism) and Kuwait (“a key transit point”). The cable
stressed the need to “generate the political will necessary” to block money to
terrorist networks — groups that she said were “threatening stability in
Pakistan and Afghanistan and targeting coalition soldiers.”
While
President George W. Bush
frequently vowed to cut off financing for militants and pledged to make
financiers as culpable as terrorists who carried out plots, President Obama has been
far less vocal on the issue publicly as he has sought to adopt a more
conciliatory tone with Arab nations. But his administration has used many of
the same covert diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement tools as his
predecessor and set up a special task force in the summer of 2009 to deal with
the growing problem.
While
federal officials can point to some successes — prosecutions, seizures of money
and tightened money-laundering regulations in foreign countries — the results
have often been frustrating, the cables show. As the United States has pushed
for more aggressive crackdowns on suspected supporters of terrorism, foreign
leaders have pushed back. In private meetings, they have accused American
officials of heavy-handedness and of presenting thin evidence of wrongdoing by
Arab charities or individuals, according to numerous cables.
Kuwaiti
officials, for example, resisted what they called “draconian” measures sought
by the United States against a prominent charity and dismissed allegations
against it as “unconvincing,” according to one cable.
The
documents are filled with government intelligence on possible
terrorist-financing plots, like the case of a Somali preacher who was
reportedly touring Sweden, Finland and Norway last year to look for money and
recruits for the Shabab, a militant group in Somalia, or that of a
Pakistani driver caught with about $240,000 worth of Saudi riyals stuffed
behind his seat. One memo even reported on a possible plot by the Iranians to
launder $5 billion to $10 billion in cash through the Emirates’ banks as part
of a broader effort to “stir up trouble” among the Persian Gulf states, though
it was not clear how much of the money might be channeled to militants.
One
episode that set off particular concern occurred in August 2009 in Yemen, when
armed robbers stormed a bank truck on a busy downtown street in Aden during
daylight hours and stole 100 million Yemeni riyals, or about $500,000. American
diplomats said the sophistication of the robbery and other indicators had all
the markings of a Qaeda mission. “This bold, unusual operation” could provide
Al Qaeda “with a substantial financing infusion at a time when it is thought to
be short of cash,” a dispatch summarizing the episode said.
Al
Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula, is seen as a rising threat by the United States and was blamed
for a parcel bomb plot in October and the failed attempt to blow up a jetliner
last Dec. 25. The cables do not make clear whether the finances of the Yemen
group are tied to Osama bin Laden’s
network.
American
officials appear to have divided views on the bin Laden group’s fund-raising
abilities. A February cable to Richard C. Holbrooke, the
administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said that
“sensitive reporting indicates that al-Qaida’s ability to raise funds has
deteriorated substantially, and that it is now in its weakest state since
9/11.”
But many
other cables draw the opposite conclusion and cite the group’s ability to
generate money almost at will from wealthy individuals and sympathetic groups
throughout the Middle East while often staying a step ahead of counterterrorism
officials.
“Terrorists
avoid money transfer controls by transferring amounts below reporting
thresholds and using reliable cash couriers, hawala, and money grams,” a recent
cable warned. “Emerging trends include mobile banking, pre-paid cards, and
Internet banking.”
The
documents suggest that there is little evidence of significant financial
support in the United States or Europe for terrorist groups in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, despite a string of deadly but largely low-budget attacks in London
and other European cities in recent years, according to the documents.
“U.K.
financing is important, but the real money is in the Gulf,” a senior British
counterterrorism official told a Treasury Department
official, according to a cable last year from the American Embassy in London.
In
hundreds of cables focusing on terrorist financing, the problem takes on an air
of intractability, as American officials speak of the seeming ease with which
terrorists are able to move money, the low cost of carrying out deadly attacks,
and the difficulty of stopping it. Interdictions are few, and resistance is
frequent.
In
Kuwait, for instance, American officials have voiced repeated concerns that
Islamic charities — largely unregulated by the government there — are using
philanthropic donations to finance terrorism abroad. But a Kuwaiti minister, in
a meeting last year with the United States ambassador, “was as frank and
pessimistic as ever when it came to the subject of apprehending and detaining
terror financiers and facilitators under Kuwait’s current legal and political
framework,” a memo summarizing the meeting said.
Saudi
Arabia, a critical military and diplomatic ally, emerges in the cables as the
most vexing of problems. Intelligence officials there have stepped up their
spying on militants in neighboring Yemen, and they provided the tip that helped
uncover the recent parcel bombs. But while the Saudis have made some progress,
“terrorist funding emanating from Saudi Arabia remains a serious concern,” according
to a cable in February. Mrs. Clinton’s memo two months earlier said Al Qaeda,
the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other groups “probably raise millions of
dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan.” Officials
said they believed that fund-raisers for extremist groups had often descended
on the pilgrims to seek money for their causes.
The
American Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reported in February that the Saudis
remained “almost completely dependent on the C.I.A.” for
leads and direction on terrorist financing.
So it was
not surprising that a month earlier, the embassy reported in a separate cable
that Treasury Department officials had provided information to the Saudi
domestic intelligence service, the Mabahith, on three senior Taliban leaders —
Tayyeb Agha, Mullah Jalil and Khalil Haqqani — who had made several
fund-raising trips to the kingdom, the cable said. (Like a number of other
suspected financiers identified in the cables, the three Taliban leaders do not
appear on the Treasury Department’s list of “banned” entities suspected of
terrorism financing connections.)
The
Americans shared phone numbers, e-mail addresses and passport information for
the three men with the Saudis to cross check against Saudi customs databases.
Saudi authorities said they were not familiar with the Taliban leaders but
promised to pursue the tips.
Last
week, American officials said steady pressure from the Bush and Obama
administrations had led to significant improvements in fighting terrorist
financing. They said, for example, Saudi Arabia was now taking actions that
they had long hesitated to take or had resisted, including holding financiers
accountable through prosecutions and making terrorist financing a higher
priority. A leading Saudi religious scholar has issued an edict against
terrorist financing, and the Saudis have created new financial intelligence
unit.
“The U.S.
government has been relentless in pursuing sources and methods of terrorist
financing, including prioritizing this issue with all countries in the gulf
region,” said Stuart A. Levey, a senior Treasury official, who was speaking
generally about American policy and not about anything in the leaked cables.
“As a result, we have put Al Qaeda under significant financial pressure.”
Behind
the scenes at diplomatic encounters, tensions have occasionally flared. In
2007, a senior Bush administration official, Frances Fragos Townsend, told
her Saudi counterparts in Riyadh that Mr. Bush was “quite concerned” about the
level of cooperation from the Saudis, and she brought a personal letter on the
subject from the president to King Abdullah, according to a cable summarizing
the exchange.
Ms.
Townsend questioned whether the kingdom’s ambassador to the Philippines,
Mohammed Ameen Wali, might be involved in supporting terrorism because of his
involvement with two people suspected of being financiers, the summary said.
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the
Saudi foreign minister, challenged the assertion, however, saying the ambassador
might be guilty of “bad judgment rather than intentional support for
terrorism,” and he countered with an assertion of his own: an unnamed American
bank handling the Saudi Embassy’s money in Washington was performing
unnecessary audits and asking “inappropriate and aggressive questions.”
American
diplomats said that while the Saudis appeared earnest in wanting to stanch the
flow of terrorist money, they often lacked the training and expertise to do it.
“Their capabilities often fall short of their aspirations,” a cable last
November said.
Saudi
leaders appear equally resigned to the situation, according to the cables. “We
are trying to do our best,” Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who leads the Saudis’
anti-terrorism activities, was quoted as telling Mr. Holbrooke, the special
representative to the region, in a May 2009 meeting.
But, he
said, “if money wants to go” to terrorist causes, “it will go.”
Iran
'must be stopped': Arab leaders implored U.S. to attack, WikiLeaks disclosures
show
Diplomatic
cables released by WikiLeaks show Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as among nations
strongly urging the U.S. to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The cables
reveal the fear of Iran in the Arab world.
By Borzou Daragahi and Paul Richter,
Los Angeles Times
November 29, 2010
Reporting from Beirut and Washington
Leaders of oil-rich Arabian Peninsula
monarchies who are publicly reluctant to criticize Iran have been beseeching
the United States in private to attack the Islamic Republic and destroy its
nuclear facilities, according to a series of classified diplomatic cables
released by the WikiLeaks website.
The cables show that both Saudi King
Abdullah and King Hamed ibn Isa Khalifa of Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. 5th
Fleet, are among the Arab leaders who have lobbied the United States to strike
Iran. According to one dispatch, a Saudi official reminded Americans that the
king had repeatedly asked the U.S. to "cut off the head of the
snake" before it was too late.
The cables were among more than 250,000
American diplomatic dispatches provided by WikiLeaks to five U.S. and European
news outlets, which began reporting the contents on their websites Sunday. The
cables offer U.S. officials' candid and sometimes unflattering analyses of
foreign leaders and governments, which could strain relations with Arab and
European states, Russia, China and other major players.
Among other disclosures, the cables
reveal:
—U.S. officials believe North Korea has
provided Iran with missiles that could allow it to strike European capitals and
Moscow.
—U.S. diplomats have been assigned to
gather a wide variety of information on foreign officials, including such
details as credit card numbers. The United Nations secretary-general and his
team have been among the special targets of this information gathering.
—The United States has carried on an
unsuccessful effort to remove from a Pakistani research reactor enriched
uranium U.S. officials fear could fall into the hands of militants.
—U.S. officials have been told by a
Chinese source that the Chinese Politburo was behind the hacking of Google's
computer system in China.
The cables are the third huge release
of classified U.S. data by WikiLeaks. U.S. officials believe they were passed
to WikiLeaks by a disgruntled Army private, Bradley Manning, who had access to
classified computer networks as a junior intelligence analyst in Iraq. Manning
is now in a military jail, but authorities believe he provided the classified
data before he was arrested. WikiLeaks has been parceling it out at intervals.
The White House denounced the
disclosures as "dangerous and reckless," warning that they could
jeopardize the safety of foreign officials and others who have helped the
United States, and would make it more difficult to conduct routine diplomacy.
WikiLeaks released the documents in advance to the Guardian of Britain, Der
Spiegel of Germany, Le Monde in France, El Pais in Spain and the New York
Times.
U.S. officials have spent long hours in
recent days notifying foreign governments that the cables would include
sensitive material. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has personally
called 11 capitals to try to soften the impact.
While the trove of cables did not
contain startling revelations about Iran, they show that the Islamic Republic
has been a preoccupation of the Obama administration and the Bush White House
before it.
The documents illustrate how frightened
the Arab world is of Iran's rising ambitions and its nuclear program — and how
much Iran has become the center of attention in capitals around the world. At a
June 2009 meeting with U.S. lawmakers, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
argued that attacking Iran any later than late 2010 "would result in
unacceptable collateral damage."
Although Persian Gulf leaders recognize
that the options for dealing with Iran are limited, the dispatches indicate
that they repeatedly have urged U.S. military action, fearing that allowing
Iran to build a nuclear bomb would shift the balance of power decisively in the
region.
"That program must be
stopped," one Nov. 4, 2009, cable quotes Khalifa as telling Gen. David H.
Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S.
military activity in the Middle East. "The danger of letting it go is
greater than the danger of stopping it."
In a May 2005 meeting, Abu Dhabi Crown
Prince Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan, deputy supreme commander of the armed
forces of the United Arab Emirates, urged a U.S. general to use "ground
forces" to take out Iran's nuclear program. Another cable noted that even
though the military official was urging the U.S. to attack, the federation did
not honor U.S. requests to interdict suspicious shipments transiting its shores
to Iran. A February 2010 cable attributes Bin Zayed's "near
obsessive" arms buildup to his fears about Iran.
"I believe this guy is going to
take us to war," Bin Zayed told a U.S. delegation in April 2006 of Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's a matter of time. Personally I cannot
risk it with a guy like Ahmadinejad. He is young and aggressive."
In December 2009, Bin Zayed told a U.S.
official, "We know your priority is Al Qaeda, but don't forget Iran. Al
Qaeda is not going to get a nuclear bomb."
During an April 2008 visit to Saudi
Arabia, Petraeus and former U.S. envoy to Baghdad Ryan Crocker got an earful
from the king and other officials about the need to confront Iran's nuclear
program and its ambitions in Iraq. And during an April 2009 meeting, Saudi
Prince Turki Kabeer warned American, Russian and Dutch diplomats that Riyadh
could not stomach Iran's continued enrichment of uranium. "We are OK with
nuclear electrical power and desalinization, but not with enrichment," he
was quoted as saying.
Still, one Saudi diplomat urged
Americans in 2008 to avoid war and launch talks. An Omani official asked
Americans to take a more nuanced view of the Iranian issue and to question
whether other Arab leaders' entreaties for war were based on logic or emotion.
Several documents showed the extent to
which the U.S. has been desperately attempting to obtain detailed information
on Iran's political scene and economy by interviewing sources at American
diplomatic outposts in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Azerbaijan.
The U.S. has not had diplomatic
relations with Iran for decades, and the documents show that Americans
repeatedly have relied on European allies with embassies in Tehran to gain
understanding of the Islamic Republic. According to one cable, former British
envoy Geoffrey Adams advised Americans to be "steady and firm, tough but
not aggressive" in late 2007 negotiations between Iranian and American
officials over the security situation in Iraq.
"The current Iranian regime is
effectively a fascist state and the time has come to decide on next
steps," French diplomat Jean-David Levitte advised U.S. officials in
September 2009.
The cables detail Iran's alleged
breaches of law and protocol under Ahmadinejad and his hard-line entourage. A
source at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai alleged that Iran used the Red Crescent
Society to funnel weapons and militants into Iraq and Lebanon.
One cable quoted U.N. weapons
inspectors as telling American officials in Vienna that Iran refused to hand
over original design plans for an enrichment facility near the city of Qom. The
cable quotes the U.N. officials as saying that during an inspection of the
facility, Iranian technicians were "steered by unseen observers" who
dispatched notes during meetings and insisted on recording all conversations.
November 4, 2010
Saudi Friends and Foes
By Frank Gaffney
11/3/2010
It seems that,
thanks to Saudi Arabia, the latest effort to kill Americans with sophisticated
bombs failed. Thanks to Saudi Arabia, we are certain to be subjected to more
such attacks in the future.
The preceding
paragraph captures the double game we confront from a kingdom that, on the one
hand, is routinely characterized by American officials as a reliable U.S. ally
in the volatile Middle East, a crucial source of oil and a trustworthy
recipient of sophisticated weaponry. On the other hand, it is also the
wellspring of shariah, the supremacist totalitarian doctrine that is the law of
the land in Saudi Arabia and that animates and enables jihadists worldwide – thanks
to immense support from Saudi royals, government agencies, businessmen, clerics
and “charities.”
In a report
Sunday on the intercepted Hewlett Packard printers whose ink cartridges were
transformed into potent bombs and dispatched from Yemen, the New York Times
declared that Saudi Arabia in recent years had been forced to “wake up to a
reality it had long refused to acknowledge. The puritanical strain of Islam
fostered by the state, sometimes called Wahhabism, was breeding extremists who
were willing to kill even Muslims for their cause.” Now, the paper concluded,
“Saudi Arabia’s problem…has become the world’s problem.”
The truth is
that the Saudis’ problem has been the world’s problem for some time now. It is
a problem that becomes more intractable, not less, as our government and others
refuse even to come to recognize, let alone come to grips with, the Kingdom’s
double game whose malevolent elements are directly fueled by what the
authorities of Islam – especially those who operate in the kingdom – call
shariah, rather than Wahhabism.
How has
Washington chosen to respond instead? By and large, it has seen what it wants
to see in the House of Saud and averted its gaze from what it does not want to
see. Accordingly, the Saudis’ episodic help with countering terrorism is
lauded, while their vast material and ideological contribution to its spread is
largely overlooked. Their contribution to instability in the Middle East is
discounted and their “peace plan” for ending the Israel-Palestinian conflict on
terms that would assuredly endanger the Jewish State is enthusiastically
embraced.
Similarly, the
Saudis are never held accountable for their role as prime-movers behind the
“stealth jihad” – the effort to insinuate shariah into nations like ours
through the text books, mosques, Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, media
ownership and other influence operations they underwrite. This dangerous
practice is often lubricated by the Saudis’ generous financial and other
relationships with former senior U.S. government officials and prominent
businesses, who can be counted upon to discourage probing questions or more
prudential policies here.
At the moment,
this “see-no-evil” approach is manifested by President Obama’s proposed sale of
$60-plus billion worth of advanced American arms to Saudi Arabia. Unless
Congress objects in the next few weeks, large quantities of sophisticated
fighter planes, helicopters, missile systems and bombs will be transferred to
the Saudis over the next decade.
Such weapons
are, of course, unlikely to do much to help the Saudis with what the New York
Times euphemistically calls their “problem” with “extremists” and “militants.”
The latter are, after all, simply acting upon the Saudis’ own
politico-military-legal code, shariah.
These arms may
or may not assure the Kingdom will provide down the road the sort of help its
intelligence services reportedly gave us in recent days in countering “their
problem” as it continues to metastasize around the world. Even less certain is
whether this massive infusion of U.S. military equipment will have any
appreciable impact in contending with the Saudis’ other problem – and ours: a
nuclear-armed and ever-more-aggressive Iran.
What does seem
predictable, however, is that at some point these arms will wind up in the
hands of people who are not even our fair-weather friends. Candidates would
include those among the 5,000 Saudi princes who take seriously their duty under
shariah to wage holy war against infidels like us. Then, there are the
followers of Osama bin Laden – some of whom are actually affiliated with al
Qaeda, others of whom simply emulate him – who seek to supplant the Saudi
royals and would love to have access to the Kingdom’s arsenal and oil wealth to
pursue their jihadist ambitions against Israel and the United States.
Another
possibility is that a nuclear-armed Iran may become so dominant a force in the
Persian Gulf that it manages – one way or another, perhaps by direct force of
arms or perhaps by collusion with the Shiites who populate the Saudis’ most
oil-rich region – to acquire this array of formidable American-supplied
weaponry. While the dangers associated with such an eventuality may be
mitigated somewhate by the need to have U.S. contractors maintain and support
such weapons, they cannot be denied.
The United States
simply can no longer afford to look the other way on Saudi double-dealing. The
time to establish whose side they really are on – and are likely to be on in
the years to come – is before we arm them to the teeth with weapons that could
come back to bite us.
Frank
Gaffney
The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the
$110-a-barrel oil
they sell U.S. consumers,
will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk
missiles. Has
it come to this — U.S. soldiers,
sailors, Marines and airmen as the
mercenaries
of sheiks, sultans and emirs,
Hessians of the New World Order, hired out
to do
the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni
royals? -
OBAMA IS UP THEIR A
SSES BIG TIME. HE PROBABLY
LIKES THE SMELL OF ALL THE DIRTY SAUDIS LOOT
THAT THESE FREAKS HANDED OVER TO HILLARY AND
BILLARY AND THEN BUSH TO BUILD
PRESIDENTIAL
LIBRARYS.
IS BARACK OBAMA UP
THE ARSES OF AMERICAN’S 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS?
DOES HE SMELL THE
KIND OF $$$ LOOT $$$ THE FILTHY SAUDIS HAVE HANDED OVER TO HILLARY/BILLARY FOR
THE BILLARY LIBRARY?
Understanding the Wahhabist Infiltration of
America
Frank Salvato
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.
*
The latest death count by radical islam
2010.09.09 (Khyber, Pakistan) - Three laborers working in a forest are abducted
and murdered by Tehreek-e-Taliban.
2010.09.09 (Yala, Thailand) - Muslim separatists shoot a 52-year-old Buddhist
in the head then kick his body under a bridge.
2010.09.09 (Vladikavkaz, Russia) - A Shahid drives an explosives-laden vehicle
into a market, blasting seventeen shoppers to bits.
2010.09.09 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - Five Fedayeen suicide bombers storm an
airport and kill nine others, including two women.
2010.09.09 (Kurram, Pakistan) - Militants murder ten bus passengers with an
explosive device.
2010.09.09 (Diyala, Iraq) - A woman is beheaded in her own home by suspected
al-Qaeda 'insurgents'.
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.
Related Reading:
Freedom House
http://www.freedomhouse.org
Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/45.pdf
Basics Project: Terrorism – Ideology
http://www.basicsproject.org/terrorism/ideology.htm#Wahhabism
Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism
(Paperback)
by DORE GOLD
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com Review
In the global search for culprits and causes in the rise of terrorism, former
Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold shines a spotlight on a
nation many think of as a close ally of the United States: Saudi Arabia. As he
explains in Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global
Terrorism, Gold believes that the Saudi government is greatly influenced by the
Islamist sect known as Wahhabism and, he explains, that influence has lead to
Saudi support of terrorism in the Middle East, Europe, the United States and
around the world. The historical portion of Gold’s argument, where he traces
the emergence of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the changing face of Saudi
leadership, is admirably extensive and detailed. His modern research is a
little more uneven, relying on statements by various Muslim clergy members,
letters to the editors of newspapers, opinion pieces, and other evidence that
is rarely damnable. Curiously, mentions of Israel and the long-standing
Arab-Israeli conflict are much more infrequent than one would expect from an
Israeli diplomat and scholar. But regardless of one’s opinion of Gold’s
research or his alarming conclusions, the book offers something not often found
in modern political nonfiction: a coherent structure, exhaustive research, and
a clear and consistent perspective on the ongoing threat of terrorism. --John
Moe --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Review
If you read one book to understand al-Qaeda’s fury...to us within the Muslim
world, it should be this -- R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA --This
text refers to the Audio Cassette edition.
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.
F.B.I. 10% OF MOSQUES IN AMERICA PREACH
JIHAD!
Nov
13 2009 - NewsMax
by Ronald Kessler
Imams preach jihad and extremism in
10 percent of the 2,000 mosques in the United States, the FBI estimates.
That sums up the problem facing us as we ponder the meaning of Army Maj. Nidal
Malik Hasan's slayings of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Given his association
with a pro–al–Qaida imam in northern Virginia and his preoccupation with
radical Islamic Web sites, it's clear that the radical element of Islam
influenced Hasan.
Armstrong Williams
The Endless
Wars of Islam ... WHILE AMERICA'S BORDERS WITH NARCOMEX ARE LEFT UNDEFENDED.
Islam
emerged from what is modern day Saudi Arabia in the 7th century, and never
looked back. Muslim armies swept across North Africa and invaded Catholic
Spain, destroying or converting the Christian communities along the way. They
turned churches into mosques, and made Islam the official religion. Muslim
armies also took over the Holy Land, destroyed the last non-Islamic Persian
empire, and moved into Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). By the 16th century,
Islam had destroyed the Christian Byzantine Empire, had taken over
Constantinople, and had turned the Hagia Sophia -- the most beautiful church in
Christendom -- into a mosque. A century later, Muslim armies were outside the
gates of Vienna.
While
the years have passed and the names of the armies and countries have changed,
Islam's war against the rest of us continues at full speed. There isn't a day
that goes by without a new terrorist attack carried out by a Muslim militant.
Women are stoned in Afghanistan because they had the nerve to be raped...
Children are beaten to death and strung up in Pakistan, because they were
suspected of theft... Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries are in constant
fear of kidnapping and murder... It's even happening here. In Buffalo, New
York, a Muslim-American television executive who attempted to use his station
to improve U.S public opinion about Muslims later beheaded his wife after she
filed for divorce. Of the roughly 25 wars currently ongoing, 21 involve Muslim
countries. Put differently, Islam is connected to 80% of the planet's armed
conflicts, while making up only 20% of its population. There's a reason for
that.
In
Islam the world exists in two Houses. The House of Peace, where Islam is the
recognized religion, and the House of War, where Islam is fighting to become
the recognized religion, and because Islam teaches that Allah may change his
mind at any time, for Muslims, there is no stable and universal moral code.
When you eliminate reason as a guide in human thinking, force is the only thing
that determines truth. For that reason, in the House of War, anything goes.
In
regard to the Park51 mosque, both critics and supporters are getting the
context wrong. They're framing the debate as if it were a New York or American
affair -- a local dispute over land use. This is dangerously naive. The context
isn't New York in the year 2010, but the whole world since the seventh century.
If you ignore that, you miss the entire point, and are reduced to explaining
the protests as examples of bigotry or religious intolerance.
Islam
has always grown through conquest, never through peaceful conversion or
persuasion. Furthermore, there is nothing in Islam that allows for religious
freedom, because Islam rejects the use of reason. If you can't depend on
reason, then what's the point of having the freedom to use it? After all, it
will only mislead you. In Islam, you're expected to submit to God (as he is
presented to you by Islam), no matter what your reason or logic tells you.
That
theological point has real-world consequences: The God of Islam will do what he
will do, when he wants to do it, and there's no telling what that might be. God
might make the sun rise tomorrow... Or he may not. He may upend the laws of
gravity, or he might maintain them. We don't know, it's all up to Allah. That
means we don't live in a stable natural world, and science is therefore
impossible. That's the reason the Islamic world has fallen so far behind in
technology, science, and medicine -- because they've rejected its very
foundation. That's also why democracy is ultimately incompatible with the
religion: If you can't depend on reason, how could you successfully choose a
leader? Instead, a leader will be chosen for you by whatever Islamic authority
has jurisdiction.
Contrast
that with the attitudes of both Christianity and Judaism throughout history.
While both have had (sometimes serious) conflicts -- and have carried out
periods of religious suppression -- they both share a devotion to God-given
human reason. Think of what that makes possible: People can be persuaded
through argument, and not violence. Might no longer makes right. When
Christians and Jews have violated this in the past, it is because they have
acted contrary to the foundations of their religions, not because of it.
This
devotion to reason also creates room for religious freedom. If we can use
reason as a guide, then truth -- if presented fairly -- will be more compelling
than error. We don't need to impose our religion through force (as is the case
with Islam), but can simply create a free society where people can make their
own decisions about faith and government. They'll sometimes be wrong, but when
they are, it's because they neglected some aspect of their reason.
Islam
is entirely different. They rejected philosophy in the 11th century, and have
been in a cultural free fall ever since. Muslims are fine with religious
freedom when they're in the minority in a country, because it gives them room
to grow. But once they become the majority, they transform the nation into
something else entirely, because a liberal democracy run by human reason is an
offense (and an impossibility) to the Muslim Mind. Islam doesn't thrive in a liberal
democracy; it merely bides its time.
OBAMA
HAS SABOTAGED OUR BORDERS TO EASE ILLEGALS OVER THEM, INTO OUR JOBS AND TO VOTE
FOR LA RAZA DEMS!
HE HAS
CONTINUED THE SQUALID POLITICS OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY – CARLYLE GROUP (SEE
BOOK: House of Bush – House of Saud), AND ETHICALLY SQUALID HILLARY BILLARY’S
KISSING UP TO THE FILTHY SAUDIS SO THEY CAN FILL THEIR POCKETS FULL OF THE
MONEY THE SAUDIS BLEED US FOR WITH BIG SAUDIS OIL, WHICH ALSO FUNDS
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM!
THE BUSH CRIME
FAMILY, i.e., think BUSH-SAUDI CARLYLE GROUP, BILLARY-HILLARY LIBRARY AND
BARACK OBAMA HAVE ALL BEEN IN BED WITH THE FILTHY SAUDIS THAT INVADED US 9-11.
BILLARY-HILLARY HAVE
TAKEN A MASSIVE FORTUNE FROM ALL THE MUSLIM DICTATORS THAT THEY HAVE SIPHONED
OFF TO THE BILLARY LIBRARY. IN PARTICULAR THEY'VE FILLED UP ON DIRTY SAUDI
MONEY DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS ILLEGAL FOR PEOPLE OF JEWISH OR CHRISTIAN
FAITH TO BUILD CHURCHES IN SAUDIS LAND!
IT WAS NOT THE IRAQIS
THAT INVADED US 9-11. IT WAS THE SAUDIS! THE BUSH FAMILY HAS INVADED IRAQ ON
BEHALF OF THEIR SAUDIS PARTNERS TWICE!
IF THE SAUDIS HAVE
THEIR WAY, THEIR BOY OBAMA, AND HILLS WILL INVADE IRAN, WHICH ALONG WITH THE
IRAQIS, ARE SAUDIS ENEMIES.
THE SAUDIS LOVE THEIR
AMERICAN DUPES, THE CLOWNS THAT HAVE RUN THIS NATION INTO THE GROUND, IN PART
FOR BIG BUSH SAUDIS OIL ALONG WITHE BUSH SAUDIS CARLYLE GROUP.
EVEN THE BUSH CRIME
FAMILY HAS NOT DONE AS MUCH FOR THE SAUDIS INVADERS AS BARACK OBAMA! WE ALL
CRINGED WHEN OBAMA KNELT AND KISSED THE HEM OF THE ROYAL LARDBUCKET DICTATOR OF
SAUDIS LAND!
BARACK OBAMA, WHO IS
NOTHING MORE THAN BUSH'S THIRD TERM, MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR AMERICANS TO SUE THE
SAUDIS INVADERS! HE'S KISSED UP THE SAUDI ASS, WAITING FOR THE SAUDI DICTATORS'
MONEY FOR HIS LIBRARY LIKE BUSH AND HIS FAMILY AND HILLARY BILLARY.
THERE ARE ONLY A
DOZEN PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE VAST FOTUNES BETRAYING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON
BEHALF OF MUSLIM DICTATORS!
*
Wednesday,
June 3, 2009
Television
* President Obama spends the day in Saudi Arabia ahead
of what the White House says will be a major speech in Egypt
tomorrow on U.S.-Muslim relations. Critics say the president
should not be delivering this speech in Egypt... which is led
by one of the country’s longest serving autocrats ever. That’s
the subject of our face off debate tonight.
Obama
accused of siding with Saudi princes and against 9/11 family members
Bottom of Form
9/11 families say Obama
is bowing to Saudi interests
The
group 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorismreleased a statement
last night in response to the U.S. Solicitor General’s decision against
supporting their request to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court (Thomas E.
Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., et al.,
Case No. 03-CV-9849 (RCC) In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, MDL
1570)
The
group believes that the case would bankrupt and cripple terrorist funding
around the world, preventing future attacks.
The statement accuses the Obama Administration of
siding with“…a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American
citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no
doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone
who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.”
The
group believes; “The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and
strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed
and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight
against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the
world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that
they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that
result.”
The
statement continues, calling the Administration’s decision unprincipled and
political; “The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of
justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies,
and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on
the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused
of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the
Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and
in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it,
these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent,
but because they are royalty.”
The statement concludes:
“The
Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly
acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in
dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one
that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder
of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to
the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's
filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims
decided under accurate legal standards.
For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court
to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded
priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right
to have our day in Court.”
The
statement was released by 9/11 family members Mike Low, Father of Sara
Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North
Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA
Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf
of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism.
IN BED WITH THE
SAUDIS INVADERS
Ex-White House
counter-terror chief charges CIA shielded 9/11 hijackers
By Bill Van Auken
13 August 2011
The former chief
White House counterterrorism adviser in both the Clinton and George W. Bush
administrations charges in a recently released interview that the CIA
deliberately concealed the presence in the United States of two Saudi members
of Al Qaeda who subsequently participated in the September 11, 2001 terror
attacks.
“There was a high
level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share that information,”
Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism “czar” said in the October 2009
interview that was released this week by the makers of an upcoming documentary
entitled “Who is Richard Blee?” Blee is a CIA officer who headed the agency’s
Osama bin Laden unit in the period leading up to 9/11.
Asked at how high a
level such a decision would have been made, Clarke responded, “I would think it
would have to be made by the director,” referring to then-CIA Director George
Tenet.
Tenet has responded
to the charges in a joint statement issued with Blee and Cofer Black, the
former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, who went on to become a top
official at Blackwater and other private intelligence/security companies. They
called Clarke’s charges “reckless and profoundly wrong.” They went on to claim
that they had been exonerated of any wrongdoing exhaustively by the 9/11
Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the CIA Inspector General’s
report.
All of these probes
served essentially to whitewash the role of government agencies in the 9/11
events. Referring to their own participation in these investigations, the three
former CIA officials wrote, “We testified under oath about what we did, what we
knew and what we didn’t know. We stand by that testimony.”
According to the
documentary makers, when informed of the statement, Clarke said that he
maintained the positions expressed in the 2009 interview.
In that interview,
Clarke, asked if he had questioned Tenet and the other top CIA officials about
the concealed information, responded, “They got away with it. They’re not going
to tell you even if you waterboarded them.”
The CIA had been
following the two Al Qaeda operatives—Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar—as
early as 1999. The first of the 9/11 hijackers to enter the US, they were
ultimately identified as two of those aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which
crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
Working together with
Malaysian intelligence, the CIA monitored their activities and videotaped them
when they attended a 2000 planning meeting of Al Qaeda and other Islamist
terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital.
They subsequently
flew to Thailand, where the CIA claimed it had lost track of them, and then
boarded a flight to the US, arriving in Los Angeles on January 15, 2000.
While the CIA was
aware that one of the two Al Qaeda members had obtained a US visa, it made no
attempt to alert the FBI or the US State Department in order to have their
names placed on a“terrorist watch list” so that they could be apprehended or at
put under surveillance upon entry into the US.
In the 13-minute videotaped
interview posted by the makers of the upcoming documentary on their web site,
secrecykills.com, Clarke suggests that the CIA shielded the Al Qaeda members
from the scrutiny of other agencies because its aim was to “flip” them,
recruiting them as informants inside the terrorist group. He describes this
theory as “the only conceivable reason that I’ve been able to come up with” as
to why the CIA would fail to inform the FBI or even the White House about their
presence inside the US.
He noted that, had
the FBI learned of the presence of the two Saudis inside the US, they would
have come under its jurisdiction, interfering with the supposed CIA plans to
recruit and run them as its own “assets.” Clarke further speculated that the
agency worked through Saudi intelligence as a means of circumventing the legal
restrictions on CIA operations inside the US.
Clarke dismissed
Tenet’s claims that he was unaware of the intelligence on the two Al Qaeda
operatives. “George Tenet followed all the information about Al Qaeda in
microscopic detail,” he said in the interview. “He read raw intelligence
reports before analysts in counterterrorism did, and he would pick up the phone
and call me at 7:30 in the morning to talk about them.”
Clarke said that
while he had originally thought that the failure to alert other agencies about
al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar had been a case of “one lonely CIA analyst” failing to
recognize the importance of the information, he now knows that “No, fifty, 5-0,
CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these
guys were in the country was the CIA director.”
He further charged
that his not being made aware of this intelligence could only be the result of
a direct order to stop the information from reaching the White House. “Unless
someone intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution [of intelligence
files], I would automatically get it.”
“For me to this day,”
he added, “it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about
everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the
director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48
people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my
staff in a period of over 12 months … We therefore conclude that there was a
high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information.”
As damning as his
conclusions are, Clarke’s theory may be, in fact, one of the more “charitable”
explanations of the CIA’s silence on the presence of the two Al Qaeda members
in California.
The two enjoyed
high-level protection from the moment of their arrival in early 2000. They were
met at the airport by one Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil
aviation authority, who US investigators concluded was an agent of Saudi
intelligence. According to press reports, they received thousands of dollars in
funding funneled to them by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the
Saudi ambassador in Washington and a close confidante of the Bush family.
The two were able to
live openly in the US, using credit cards in their names, with one of them even
having a listing in the telephone directory. And they took flight lessons.
Between their initial
entry in January 2000 and September 11, 2001, al-Mihdhar was able to fly out of
the country and back in again with no difficulty. Al-Hazmi, meanwhile, was able
to renew his visa.
Shortly after their
arrival, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar moved into the San Diego, California home of
Abdusssatar Shaikh, who was a paid informant of the FBI, charged with
monitoring activities of Islamist groups in the area. The FBI subsequently
attempted to conceal the close relation formed by its informant with the
hijackers. When a joint congressional committee attempted to subpoena Shaikh,
the FBI flatly refused, saying that the Bush administration would not allow it.
Former Florida
Democratic Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman and then ranking minority
member of the Senate intelligence panel, wrote in his book Intelligence
Matters of this unprecedented defiance of a congressional subpoena: “We
were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was
directing a cover-up.”
In the film
interview, Clarke also points to two key meetings held in the run-up to 9/11.
The first was a meeting sought by CIA Director Tenet, with then national
security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, in which Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism director Black warned that Al Qaeda was preparing an attack on
US interests, possibly in the US itself.
Clarke noted that in
the course of this meeting the two failed to provide the “most persuasive
information you’ve got,” i.e., they “never once mentioned that already two Al
Qaeda terrorists known to be involved in the Kuala Lumpur planning session had
entered the United States.”
He also cited a
September 4, 2001,“principals” meeting of senior officials involved in national
security in which, once again, there was no mention by the CIA director of the
two known Al Qaeda operatives within the US, even though by this time
lower-level FBI officials had been informed. Clarke said that there was one
obvious reason for the silence. If it had been reported, it would have raised
sharp questions as to how long the CIA had known about the two and why they had
not reported it earlier. It would have triggered an immediate investigation
into “malfeasance and misfeasance” by the US intelligence agency, he said.
Had the information
been provided even at that date, just a week before the terror attacks, the
former counterterrorism advisor said, the two Al Qaeda members would have been
arrested and the 9/11 plot likely disrupted. “There’s no doubt in my mind, even
with only a week left,” Clarke said. “They were using credit cards in their own
names. They were staying in the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square, for heaven’s
sake … those guys would have been arrested within 24 hours.”
Whatever the validity
of Clarke’s theory about the CIA trying to recruit al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the
eruption of a bitter controversy between the former White House
counterterrorism adviser and the former CIA director and other senior agency
officials only underscores that, nearly a full decade after the attacks, there
has been no genuine independent investigation of the terrible events of 9/11.
Moreover, not a single US official has been held responsible for what
ostensibly stands as the most catastrophic intelligence failure in American
history.
This determined
cover-up, begun by the Bush administration and continued under Obama, poses the
most critical unanswered question. Was 9/11 the result of disastrous and
potentially criminal miscalculations by those at the top of the CIA, or was it
the outcome of a conscious decision by elements within the US state to allow a terrorist
attack to take place on American soil with the aim of creating a pretext for
implementing long-prepared plans to launch wars of aggression abroad and
sweeping attacks on democratic rights at home?
*
OBAMA WILL ALWAYS SERVICE THE STATUS
QUO! BANKSTERS DONORS, WALL ST. PILLAGERS, MUSLIM DICTATORS, LA RAZA OPEN
BORDERS FOR DEPRESSED WAGES!
*
The US-backed monarchy has arrested
scores of its opponents in recent months, charging them as “terrorists.”
Political opponents have been subjected to savage torture to force them to sign
false confessions. Opposition web sites, newsletters and publications have been
shut down by the regime.
*
HOW
MUCH HAS THE HILLARY BILLARY LIBRARY TAKEN FROM SAUDI ROYAL WAHHABI TERRORIST?
MILLIONS!!!
HOW MUCH HAS BIG BUSH SAUDIS CARLYLE OIL TAKEN FROM SAUDIS ROYAL
WAHHABI TERRORIST?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
HOW MANY WARS AGAINST SAUDIS ROYAL WAHHABI TERRORIST ENEMIES,
i.e., SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BUSH, HILLARY-BILLARY- OBAMA WAGED?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
HOW MUCH LOOT DOES OBAMA EXPECT FOR KISSING SAUDI ROYAL WAHHABI
TERRORISTS’ ASS FOR HIS LIBRARY?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ISN’T IT TIME WE CLIMBED OUT OF BED WITH MUSLIMS FASCIST
TERRORIST DICTATORS?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
DON’T EXPECT OBAMA TO! HE AND HILLARY ARE BANKROLLING THE AFGHAN
DRUG ADDICT PRESIDENT, WHILE HE PROTECT THE SAUDIS WAHHABIST ASSES FROM SADDAM!
*
*
OBAMA HAS SOLD OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
OUT FOR MEXICAN TERRORISTS AND SAUDIS TERRORIST
HE
NEEDS THE LA RAZA ILLEGALS' VOTES, AND SAUDIS MONEY FOR HIS LIBRARY!
Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)
Cash Flow to Terrorists Evades U.S.
Efforts
WASHINGTON— Nine years
after the United States vowed to shut down the money pipeline that finances
terrorism, senior Obama administration officials say they believe that many
millions of dollars are flowing largely unimpeded to extremist groups
worldwide, and they have grown frustrated by frequent resistance from allies in
the Middle East, according to secret diplomatic dispatches.
The government cables, sent
by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and
senior State Department officials, catalog a list of methods that American
officials suspect terrorist financiers are using, including a brazen bank
robbery in Yemen last year, kidnappings for ransom, the harvesting of drug
proceeds in Afghanistan and fund-raising at religious pilgrimages to Mecca,
where millions of riyals or other forms of currency change hands.
While American officials
have publicly been relatively upbeat about their progress in disrupting
terrorist financing, the internal State Department cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to
several news organizations, offer a more pessimistic account, with blunt
assessments of the threats to the United States from money flowing to militants
affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba and
other groups.
A classified memo sent by
Mrs. Clinton last December made it clear that residents of Saudi Arabia and its
neighbors, all allies of the United States, are the chief financial supporters
of many extremist activities. “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade
Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a
strategic priority,” the cable said, concluding that “donors in Saudi Arabia
constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups
worldwide.”
The dispatch and others
offered similarly grim views about the United Arab Emirates (“a strategic gap”
that terrorists can exploit), Qatar (“the worst in the region” on
counterterrorism) and Kuwait (“a key transit point”). The cable stressed the
need to “generate the political will necessary” to block money to terrorist
networks — groups that she said were “threatening stability in Pakistan and
Afghanistan and targeting coalition soldiers.”
While President George W. Bushfrequently
vowed to cut off financing for militants and pledged to make financiers as culpable
as terrorists who carried out plots, President Obama has been
far less vocal on the issue publicly as he has sought to adopt a more
conciliatory tone with Arab nations. But his administration has used many of
the same covert diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement tools as his
predecessor and set up a special task force in the summer of 2009 to deal with
the growing problem.
While federal officials can
point to some successes — prosecutions, seizures of money and tightened
money-laundering regulations in foreign countries — the results have often been
frustrating, the cables show. As the United States has pushed for more
aggressive crackdowns on suspected supporters of terrorism, foreign leaders
have pushed back. In private meetings, they have accused American officials of
heavy-handedness and of presenting thin evidence of wrongdoing by Arab
charities or individuals, according to numerous cables.
Kuwaiti officials, for
example, resisted what they called “draconian” measures sought by the United
States against a prominent charity and dismissed allegations against it as
“unconvincing,” according to one cable.
The documents are filled
with government intelligence on possible terrorist-financing plots, like the
case of a Somali preacher who was reportedly touring Sweden, Finland and Norway
last year to look for money and recruits for the Shabab, a militant group in Somalia, or that of a
Pakistani driver caught with about $240,000 worth of Saudi riyals stuffed
behind his seat. One memo even reported on a possible plot by the Iranians to
launder $5 billion to $10 billion in cash through the Emirates’ banks as part
of a broader effort to “stir up trouble” among the Persian Gulf states, though
it was not clear how much of the money might be channeled to militants.
One episode that set off
particular concern occurred in August 2009 in Yemen, when armed robbers stormed
a bank truck on a busy downtown street in Aden during daylight hours and stole
100 million Yemeni riyals, or about $500,000. American diplomats said the
sophistication of the robbery and other indicators had all the markings of a
Qaeda mission. “This bold, unusual operation” could provide Al Qaeda “with a
substantial financing infusion at a time when it is thought to be short of
cash,” a dispatch summarizing the episode said.
Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen,
known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula, is seen as a rising threat by the United States and was blamed
for a parcel bomb plot in October and the failed attempt to blow up a jetliner
last Dec. 25. The cables do not make clear whether the finances of the Yemen
group are tied to Osama bin Laden’s
network.
American officials appear
to have divided views on the bin Laden group’s fund-raising abilities. A
February cable to Richard C. Holbrooke, the
administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said
that“sensitive reporting indicates that al-Qaida’s ability to raise funds has
deteriorated substantially, and that it is now in its weakest state since
9/11.”
But many other cables draw
the opposite conclusion and cite the group’s ability to generate money almost
at will from wealthy individuals and sympathetic groups throughout the Middle
East while often staying a step ahead of counterterrorism officials.
“Terrorists avoid money
transfer controls by transferring amounts below reporting thresholds and using
reliable cash couriers, hawala, and money grams,” a recent cable warned.
“Emerging trends include mobile banking, pre-paid cards, and Internet banking.”
The documents suggest that
there is little evidence of significant financial support in the United States
or Europe for terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, despite a string of
deadly but largely low-budget attacks in London and other European cities in
recent years, according to the documents.
“U.K. financing is
important, but the real money is in the Gulf,” a senior British
counterterrorism official told a Treasury Departmentofficial,
according to a cable last year from the American Embassy in London.
In hundreds of cables
focusing on terrorist financing, the problem takes on an air of intractability,
as American officials speak of the seeming ease with which terrorists are able
to move money, the low cost of carrying out deadly attacks, and the difficulty
of stopping it. Interdictions are few, and resistance is frequent.
In Kuwait, for instance,
American officials have voiced repeated concerns that Islamic charities —
largely unregulated by the government there — are using philanthropic donations
to finance terrorism abroad. But a Kuwaiti minister, in a meeting last year
with the United States ambassador, “was as frank and pessimistic as ever when
it came to the subject of apprehending and detaining terror financiers and
facilitators under Kuwait’s current legal and political framework,” a memo
summarizing the meeting said.
Saudi Arabia, a critical
military and diplomatic ally, emerges in the cables as the most vexing of
problems. Intelligence officials there have stepped up their spying on
militants in neighboring Yemen, and they provided the tip that helped uncover
the recent parcel bombs. But while the Saudis have made some
progress,“terrorist funding emanating from Saudi Arabia remains a serious
concern,”according to a cable in February. Mrs. Clinton’s memo two months
earlier said Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other groups “probably
raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and
Ramadan.” Officials said they believed that fund-raisers for extremist groups
had often descended on the pilgrims to seek money for their causes.
The American Embassy in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reported in February that the Saudis remained “almost
completely dependent on the C.I.A.” for leads
and direction on terrorist financing.
So it was not surprising
that a month earlier, the embassy reported in a separate cable that Treasury
Department officials had provided information to the Saudi domestic
intelligence service, the Mabahith, on three senior Taliban leaders —Tayyeb
Agha, Mullah Jalil and Khalil Haqqani — who had made several fund-raising trips
to the kingdom, the cable said. (Like a number of other suspected financiers
identified in the cables, the three Taliban leaders do not appear on the
Treasury Department’s list of “banned” entities suspected of terrorism
financing connections.)
The Americans shared phone
numbers, e-mail addresses and passport information for the three men with the
Saudis to cross check against Saudi customs databases. Saudi authorities said
they were not familiar with the Taliban leaders but promised to pursue the
tips.
Last week, American
officials said steady pressure from the Bush and Obama administrations had led
to significant improvements in fighting terrorist financing. They said, for
example, Saudi Arabia was now taking actions that they had long hesitated to
take or had resisted, including holding financiers accountable through
prosecutions and making terrorist financing a higher priority. A leading Saudi
religious scholar has issued an edict against terrorist financing, and the
Saudis have created new financial intelligence unit.
“The U.S. government has
been relentless in pursuing sources and methods of terrorist financing,
including prioritizing this issue with all countries in the gulf region,” said
Stuart A. Levey, a senior Treasury official, who was speaking generally about
American policy and not about anything in the leaked cables.“As a result, we
have put Al Qaeda under significant financial pressure.”
Behind the scenes at
diplomatic encounters, tensions have occasionally flared. In 2007, a senior
Bush administration official, Frances Fragos Townsend, told
her Saudi counterparts in Riyadh that Mr. Bush was “quite concerned” about the
level of cooperation from the Saudis, and she brought a personal letter on the
subject from the president to King Abdullah, according to a cable summarizing
the exchange.
Ms. Townsend questioned
whether the kingdom’s ambassador to the Philippines, Mohammed Ameen Wali, might
be involved in supporting terrorism because of his involvement with two people
suspected of being financiers, the summary said.
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the
Saudi foreign minister, challenged the assertion, however, saying the
ambassador might be guilty of “bad judgment rather than intentional support for
terrorism,” and he countered with an assertion of his own: an unnamed American
bank handling the Saudi Embassy’s money in Washington was performing
unnecessary audits and asking “inappropriate and aggressive questions.”
American diplomats said
that while the Saudis appeared earnest in wanting to stanch the flow of
terrorist money, they often lacked the training and expertise to do it.“Their
capabilities often fall short of their aspirations,” a cable last November
said.
Saudi leaders appear
equally resigned to the situation, according to the cables. “We are trying to
do our best,” Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who leads the Saudis’anti-terrorism
activities, was quoted as telling Mr. Holbrooke, the special representative to
the region, in a May 2009 meeting.
But, he said, “if money
wants to go” to terrorist causes, “it will go.”
*
Is Saudi Arabia Waging Resource Aggression Against the
American People and the World Economy?!
Posted November 8, 2007
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!
UNDERSTANDING WAHHABIST INFILTRATION
OF AMERICA
November 05, 2007
Understanding the Wahhabist Infiltration of America
Frank Salvato
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.
Related Reading:
Freedom House
Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques
Basics Project: Terrorism – Ideology
Basics Project: Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam
The Huffington Post
GETTING REAL WITH SAUDI ARABIA
RAYMOND J LEARSY
With OPEC heads of state and oil
ministers meeting in Riyadh this weekend past, with oil prices catapulting
toward $100/barrel, the administration petitioned OPEC via Energy Secretary
Bodman, to increase production. The almost immediate response to Bodman's
entreaty was an immediate rebuff by Saudi Oil Minister Al Naimi advising Bodman
there will be absolutely no discussion "on short term supplies by heads of
state or their oil ministers at this weekend Riyadh meeting".
Given the importance of oil and its price to our economy and
the world's, given Saudi Arabia's leadership role within OPEC as the swing
producer, given its capabilities (Saudi Arabia/OPEC is willfully holding back
1.2 million barrels of oil production per day from production levels delivered
to world markets a year ago) it is altogether reasonable to say that OPEC
policy is Saudi Arabia's policy. Certainly it has come to the point where
pleading with the Saudis seems futile. Especially now, with oil near $100/bbl,
they seem impervious to anything but their own interests. A new relationship is
called for. Its preamble and policy points might well be as follows:
The current price of oil is a cartel determined price. You,
Saudi Arabia, are the putative leaders of the OPEC cartel and we hold you
responsible for the marketplace distortions of this fundamentally important
commodity to the world's and our economy. It is a distortion that is an
aggression against this nation's economic wellbeing. Therefore we announce this
day and until the oil market is returned to true and manipulation free market
forces-- We have under negotiation with you together with other OPEC Gulf
States a major provision of advanced armaments. These negotiations will cease
immediately. We will be pleased to give you phone numbers of our counterparts
in Russia should you wish to procure these armaments elsewhere.
- We will immediately stand down one half of the naval task
force patrolling the Arabian/Persian Gulf protecting your shoreline at a cost
to our treasury of some $100mm/day. As the price of oil continues to escalate,
as further quantities are withheld by you from market, we will make further
reductions in the task force capabilities.
- 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. 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.
- With prices at these levels and as a signal of our
displeasure with Saudi/OPEC actions, we will immediately desist from making
further purchases of oil for our Strategic Petroleum Reserve until prices abate
significantly.
- As we consider current oil prices a threat to our economy
we will begin releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve both to make
more oil available to the market and to discipline trading on commodity markets
so that one way bets can no longer be taken for granted.
- The Administration will actively work with Congress to
pass the NOPEC measure, withdrawing the President's earlier threat of veto, so
that the sovereign exemption will be lifted from judicial procedures in
American courts thereby permitting process of claims in American courts against
OPEC entities for their cartel/monopolistic collusion.
- We will petition the World Trade Organization to actively
pursue Saudi Arabia and OPEC member states to desist from their cartel
manipulations which contravenes the essence of the WTO mandate.
- We will redouble efforts to reduce domestic consumption of
gasoline by introducing programs to changeover automobile fleets to flex fuel,
hybrid electric, and on, while mandating wide distribution capabilities for
biofuels at gas stations throughout the land.
- As our efforts take hold we will progressively institute a
cap on national gasoline consumption thereby reducing dependence on oil imports
and mitigating risks to global warming.
- We will encourage Detroit to accelerate efforts building
flex fuel/electric vehicles, providing government loans to assist the retooling
of Detroit's infrastructure.
- We will make a major commitment to overhaul and building
out our mass transportation networks most especially bringing our rail network
to par with European standards (trains traveling 200 mph plus) and refurbishing
our inland waterways to carry maximum industrial and agricultural traffic.
Given their behavior, it is the time to end our supplicant
relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is time for government to act!
*
(copy this and mail it to your local filthy Saudi embassy!)
SAUDI.... THEY FUCK US OVER, THEN SHOOT US IN THE BACK...
hey they’re just Muslims! And in this case WAHHABI FILTHY NAZIS!
A young woman in Saudi Arabia ventured out with a male
acquaintance. Both were abducted. The woman was raped by seven Muslim men. Her
government of oil thugs will lash her two hundred times and put her in prison.
Guess she’s lucky they don’t lope off her head. That’s the usual procedure for
these filthy Muslim barbarians.
Have you see the doc about the filthy Muslim men in Paris,
about 80, that gang raped a Muslim woman?
How about the filthy Muslim fanatic preaching anti‑western
propaganda in a London mosque. They finally shut him down, so he went out in
the street, which had to be closed, and preached his rabid hatred there. The
fucker supports his eight children on British welfare.
There are four million of these Muslims in the United
Kingdom. Twenty‑five percent of whom condoned the murder by Muslims in the
train terrorist attack. That is one million potential Muslims murderers in
London alone.
SAUDI
These are the same Muslims that invaded our nation 9‑11.
The filthy Saudis play a large part in the BUSH CARLYLE
GROUP, which uses White House connections to exploit and pillage in the
corporate sector. The Carlyle Group has made billions off deals that sell this
nation out. That’s why they kiss the filthy Saudi ass and China’s toxic ass.
There’s money to made. Just ask Dianne Feinstein (google Feinstein and China).
You won’t find whore Feinstein speaking out about China’s pillage of this
nation, or the filthy Saudi export of terrorism and lashing innocent women.
Obviously it’s not just Republicans and filthy Saudis that are
permitted at the Carlyle Group hog trough. Bush could readily see that Democrat
Senator Dianne Feinstein, as ethically squalid as they come, would be his best
bet for a !NO! vote should impeachment come, so Bush invited Feinstein, through
her white‑collar criminal husband, Richard C. Blum, to feed at the hog’s trough
of Bush war profits. Ever hear of Haliburton? Haliburton has long done business
illegally with Muslim Iran, even while Cheney was CEO. Now Haliburton had moved
its headquarters to filthy Muslim Dubai.
At the Carlyle Group, it was Bush One's lackey, James Baker
that was assigned the task of protecting the filthy Saudis from American
lawsuits emanating from the filthy Saudi invasion of the United States 9‑11.
Immediately after the invasion, while our air ways were
closed, Bush ordered special private jets to conduct the filthy Saudis and
their playmates, the filthy bin Ladens out of the country and back to filthy
Saudi Arabia. My heaven, that plan must have stunk!
The BUSH CRIME FAMILY has long been in bed with the filthy
Saudis. For Bush it’s all about BIG BUSH SAUDI oil. And you thought the Bush family was only in
bed with AMERIQUEST, WORLDCOM, TYCOR, ENRON......
We’ve all paid the price for BUSH BIG OIL pillage, but many
don’t seem to connect the dots on Bush and the filthy Saudis fear of ol’
Saddam. The Bush family has now started two (2) wars to PROTECT THE FILTHY
SAUDIS from Saddam Hussein.
How many American lives have been lost or crippled due to
Bush and the filthy Saudis?
And yet the filthy Saudis, along with moron Bush, pick our
ass’ endlessly. Then the filthy Saudis take some of that profit, and through
the fascist Muslim sect of WAHHABI, pay some of this money out to terrorist
that head back over to Iraq to murder our men and women over there. They also
finance fascist Wahhabi schools here and in the United Kingdom. No wonder we’re
losing against the Muslim Nazis. Our own government is abetting them, and
protecting them with YOUR LIVES!
Yes, it’s a bit hard to connect the dots. We pay our lives
to save these filthy Saudis then empty our pockets for Big Bush Saudi Oil, so
they can murder us, and others.
I think we all know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of
mass destruction. He was invaded only to protect the filthy Saudis and to put
billions into the pockets of American war profiteers like Dick Cheney and
Dianne Feinstein. With Feinstein’s war profits she went out and added a 17
million dollar mansion to her vast collections she’s acquired while whoreing
her elected office.
............................
'Al Qaeda rolodex' found in Iraq
Story Highlights
60 percent of Iraqi foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia,
Libya, documents reveal
Documents detailing names of 700 militants in Iraq seized in
U.S. raid
Official calls documents, seized near Syrian border, an
"al Qaeda rolodex"
U.S. says both Saudi Arabia, Syria have taken steps to stem
flow of foreign fighters
From CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr
WASHINGTON (CNN) ‑‑ As many as 60 percent of the foreign
fighters who entered Iraq in the past year have come from Saudi Arabia and
Libya, according to documents discovered in a raid in September near the Syrian
border, a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad confirmed to CNN Thursday.
The documents confiscated in that raid listed the identities
of more than 700 foreign fighters in Iraq, whom the United States believes
entered that country since August 2006. The official describes the documents as
"an al Qaeda rolodex."
Scrutinized along with other intelligence in the hands of
the U.S. military, the documents show that 60 percent of the foreign fighters
who entered Iraq during that time frame came either from Saudi Arabia or Libya,
the official said.
The United States believes 305 foreign fighters came from
Saudi Arabia, and 137 came from Libya.
"These statistics remind us that extremists continue to
go to Iraq because they do not want the United States nor the Iraqis to succeed
in establishing a democracy there that is an ally in the war on terror,"
she added.
...................................................................
Saudi Rights Lawyer Sidelined
License Revoked Over Advocacy for Rape Victim Who Faces
Lashing
By Faiza Saleh Ambah
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 22, 2007; A24
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, Nov. 21 ‑‑ Saudi officials have
revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul‑Rahman al‑Lahem, who has
handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang‑rape victim
sentenced to jail time and lashes.
Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine
the length of his suspension.
Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of
"belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing
the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official
letter he received Monday.
Lahem said that losing his license would be a blow to the
country's budding human rights movement.
"If I am banned from practicing law, nobody will dare
go up against the judiciary again," said Lahem, a slight man with a limp
from a childhood accident. "If I win, it will open a new chapter for human
rights in Saudi Arabia."
Lahem's license was revoked last week by the judiciary in
the eastern town of Qatif, where his client, a 20‑year‑old woman, was being
sentenced on a morals charge after she was gang‑raped by seven men.
Lahem said he was banned from the courtroom for his refusal
in September to allow his client to attend a hearing in which she would have
come face to face with her rapists. "She tried to take her life several
times after the rape, and I did not want her traumatized all over again,"
he said. The woman's name has not been published.
The Justice Ministry on Tuesday stood by its decision,
saying Lahem was banned from the court for insulting the judiciary, opposing
instructions and violating provisions of the law. It did not give details.
AMERICAN LIVES GO TO SAVE A
FILTHY ABSOLUTE MONARCH WITH 50 WIVES!
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that does not allow
political parties or civic rights groups. The official Wahhabi religious
establishment follows a strict interpretation of Islam that prohibits unrelated
men and women from mingling and does not allow differing schools of thought.
The country follows Islamic law, and many laws are not codified, giving judges
wide latitude in sentencing.
IS SAUDI ARABIA WAGING RESOURCE
AGGRESSION AGAINST THE AMERICA PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY?
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..........
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!
UNDERSTANDING
WAHHABIST INFILTRATION OF AMERICA
Understanding the Wahhabist Infiltration of America
Frank Salvato
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 world view 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.
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?
The British KISS THE FILTHY SAUDI ASS LIKE GEORGE W BUSH and
FAMILY
.........................................
A SAUDI STATE VISIT: FIVE JUMBO JETS, 100 SERVANTS AND
SEVERAL WIVES
A Saudi state visit: five jumbo jets, 100 servants...
several wives
By Colin Brown
Published: 31 October 2007
A vast motorcade of gleaming limousines ferried the
entourage of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to Buckingham Palace for the state
banquet at the start of his official three‑day tour.
Five jumbo jets kitted out to the height of luxury were used
to airlift the King's entourage to Britain.
In addition to his 23‑strong group of all‑male personal
advisers, which includes 13 members of the Saudi royal family, there were 30 officials
ranging from cabinet ministers to economists and specialists in British
affairs.
The King was also believed to have brought a handful of
wives – he has been married more than 30 times – and 100 servants to attend to
his personal needs. And as the octogenarian monarch has had heart problems, he
was also thought to have in attendance what has been called a "travelling
clinic".
Also present were Crown Prince Sultan and his son, Prince
Bandar. The crown prince runs the Ministry of Defence and Aviation, and has
been heavily involved in negotiating Saudi Arabia's arms deals, not least the
Al Yamamah deals with the UK and BAE systems, thought to have been worth $40bn
(£20bn) over 20 years and which were subject to a Serious Fraud Office
investigation suddenly dropped on the orders of the Attorney General, Lord
Goldsmith, last year.
Prince Bandar, the National Security adviser and Saudi
ambassador to Washington for 22 years, was also embroiled in the BAE inquiry.
He was alleged to have received $1bn from BAE to sweeten the 1985 Al Yamamah
deal. Prince Mohamed bin Nawaf, the Saudi ambassador to London, also attended
the banquet.
The Huffington Post
GETTING REAL WITH SAUDI ARABIA
RAYMOND J LEARSY
With OPEC heads of state and oil ministers meeting in Riyadh
this weekend past, with oil prices catapulting toward $100/barrel, the
administration petitioned OPEC via Energy Secretary Bodman, to increase
production. The almost immediate response to Bodman's entreaty was an immediate
rebuff by Saudi Oil Minister Al Naimi advising Bodman there will be absolutely
no discussion "on short term supplies by heads of state or their oil
ministers at this weekend Riyadh meeting".
Given the importance of oil and its price to our economy and
the world's, given Saudi Arabia's leadership role within OPEC as the swing
producer, given its capabilities (Saudi Arabia/OPEC is willfully holding back
1.2 million barrels of oil production per day from production levels delivered
to world markets a year ago) it is altogether reasonable to say that OPEC
policy is Saudi Arabia's policy. Certainly it has come to the point where
pleading with the Saudis seems futile. Especially now, with oil near $100/bbl,
they seem impervious to anything but their own interests. A new relationship is
called for. Its preamble and policy points might well be as follows:
The current price of oil is a cartel determined price. You,
Saudi Arabia, are the putative leaders of the OPEC cartel and we hold you
responsible for the marketplace distortions of this fundamentally important
commodity to the world's and our economy. It is a distortion that is an
aggression against this nation's economic wellbeing. Therefore we announce this
day and until the oil market is returned to true and manipulation free market
forces‑
‑ We have under negotiation with you together with other
OPEC Gulf States a major provision of advanced armaments. These negotiations
will cease immediately. We will be pleased to give you phone numbers of our
counterparts in Russia should you wish to procure these armaments elsewhere.
100 MILLION PER DAY TO PROTECT FILTHY SAUDI ASS
‑ We will immediately stand down one half of the naval task
force patrolling the Arabian/Persian Gulf protecting your shoreline at a cost
to our treasury of some $100mm/day. As the price of oil continues to escalate,
as further quantities are withheld by you from market, we will make further
reductions in the task force capabilities.
‑ 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.
INSTEAD OF INVADING IRAN, WHY NOT INVADE THE FILTHY SAUDIS?
JUST LIKE THEY DID US 9-11.......................!
***
Raymond J.
Learsy is the author of the updated Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip On Our
Future.