Wednesday, September 12, 2012

9/11 anniversary: The terror pretext in tatters - BUSHES, CLINTONS and OBAMA'S PARTNERS, THE DIRTY SAUDIS INVADERS!

9/11 anniversary: The terror pretext in tatters





Saudi Arabia is prime source of terror funds, U.S. says

Treasury official expresses frustrations with the administration's efforts to force action by the kingdom. A Senate panel orders a review.
By Josh Meyer
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 2, 2008

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration's top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

Stuart A. Levey, a Treasury undersecretary, told a Senate committee that the Saudi government had not taken important steps to go after those who finance terrorist organizations or to prevent wealthy donors from bankrolling extremism through charitable contributions, sometimes unwittingly.

"Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world," Levey said under questioning.

U.S. officials have previously identified Saudi Arabia as a major source of funding for extremism. But Levey's comments were notable because, although reluctant to directly criticize a close U.S. ally, he acknowledged frustration with administration efforts to persuade the Saudis and others to act.

"We continue to face significant challenges as we move forward with these efforts, including fostering and maintaining the political will among other governments to take effective and consistent action," Levey said, later adding: "Our work is not nearly complete."

Levey was the sole witness before the Senate Finance Committee, which Tuesday ordered an independent review of the efforts to choke off financing used by Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the committee chairman, announced the review at the end of the hearing held to assess the money-tracking campaign by Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, headed by Levey.

The Bush administration created the office in 2004 to spearhead efforts to disrupt the flow of money to extremist causes, primarily from wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf.

However, U.S. officials and counter-terrorism experts have said that international support for the effort has waned while terrorist groups have found ways around the financial restrictions. At the same time, there have been turf battles among the 19 federal agencies that work on the problem.

Senators praised work done by Levey but expressed concerns about the overall U.S. effort. The committee's Democratic and Republican leaders cited a Los Angeles Times report last week detailing problems undermining the effort.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican, said extremist groups had adapted to changing U.S. investigative methods: "We are simply not prepared right now to keep up with them and put them out of business once and for all."

Levey said the campaign has succeeded in disrupting terrorist financing by freezing suspicious assets and in gathering intelligence that could be used to identify extremists and disrupt their activities.

But under questioning by senators, Levey also spoke of difficulty in getting Saudi Arabia to take the steps U.S. officials consider necessary.

Levey said the Saudis had been aggressive in going after terrorist cells. But he said they had not lived up to promises to establish the kind of financial intelligence unit needed to trace the money trails of terrorists. Another problem is that the Saudi government has not set up a charity oversight commission to track whether donations end up in the hands of extremists.

Levey said the Saudi government has not moved to publicly hold accountable those within the kingdom who have been the subject of enforcement actions by the U.S. and other authorities.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said the Saudi failures mean that Americans who pay more than $100 a barrel for oil are in effect bankrolling extremism because wealthy Saudis "back-door" their profits into charities that fund extremist causes.

Nail Jubeir, press attache for the Saudi embassy in Washington, dismissed those concerns, saying the Bush administration has repeatedly praised Saudi Arabia for its efforts to combat terrorism.

"We have been very vigilant in our campaign against terrorism financing," Jubeir said. "We have come a long way since 9/11 on this issue."

Jubeir confirmed that Saudi Arabia has not set up the financial intelligence unit or charity commission, but said it was cracking down on the financiers of terrorism in other ways, such as making it illegal for anyone to send money outside the kingdom "without going through official government channels."

Alleged financiers of terrorism identified by the United States are being investigated, and their assets have been frozen, Jubeir said. "But unless we have evidence to try them . . . we don't parade them in public," he said. "What if it turns out they are innocent?"

At the hearing, senators also expressed concern about disputes among U.S. agencies and other administrative and investigative functions of Levey's office. Baucus and Grassley asked that the Government Accountability Office review its internal efficiency and effectiveness as well as its cooperation with foreign governments.

Levey said he had not seen the request from Baucus and Grassley, but added: "We welcome any source of advice as to how we can improve."

Is Saudi Arabia Waging Resource Aggression Against the American People and 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 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.

Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Paperback) BY DORE GOLD – get it!


“The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.” OBAMA LOOKS FORWARD TO THE KIND OF DIRTY SAUDI LOOT THAT HILLARY BILLARY HAVE LOADED UP ON!




Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Paperback) BY DORE GOLD – get it!


Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families

By Barry Grey
26 June 2009
The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.
According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.
The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.
Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.
Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”
Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.
Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”
He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.
What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?
The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.
But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.
Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.
The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.
The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.
The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.
However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.
He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi support├« for at least some of the hijackers was ├Čincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.
The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.
Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.
Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”
Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.
Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.
Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?
That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.
U.S. Helps Radical Muslim Groups Get Taxpayer Dollars
Last Updated: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 11:57am
In its fervent crusade to befriend Muslims, the White House will host special workshops this week to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources.
While this may sound surreal, it’s reality in the Obama Administration, which has embarked on a never-ending mission to befriend the enemy. Previous efforts include secret meetings between Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and extremist Arab and Muslim groups to discuss national security matters and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have for years banned them from the U.S.
As contemptible as those moves may seem, the latest effort is even more outrageous. Various government agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Education and Health will participate in the White House seminars which were exposed by an independent nonprofit dedicated to monitoring the nation’s security.
The goal is to provide the leaders of groups associated with the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda (Muslim Brotherhood) with tips on cutting through “red tape” when seeking U.S. government access or money. In all 20 national Muslim groups with ties to the global Islamist organization that preaches Jihad are scheduled to participate. Their mission is to obtain cash and other resources from Uncle Sam.
While the U.S. government has kept the event quiet, it was announced in a newsletter by a Saudi-funded group (Islamic Society of North America or ISNA) that was a co-conspirator in a federal terrorist funding case a few years ago. Featured in a Judicial Watch special report on Muslim charities that finance terrorism, ISNA is firmly committed to spreading the radical form of Islam, which is the driving force behind Jihad.
Now the Obama Administration is helping ISNA and its radical Islamic counterparts access American taxpayer resources as well as top government officials. 
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'.
 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

Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques

Basics Project: Terrorism – Ideology
Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Paperback)
Editorial Reviews 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.

If you read one book to understand al-Qaeda’s 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.

From the Los Angeles Times

Terrorism money is still flowing

The United States vowed to smother funding, but a lack of cooperation -- global and domestic -- along with other problems have hobbled the effort.
By Josh Meyer
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

March 24, 2008

WASHINGTON — The U.S.-led effort to choke off financing for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is foundering because setbacks at home and abroad have undermined the Bush administration's highly touted counter-terrorism weapon, according to current and former officials and independent experts.

In some cases, extremist groups have blunted financial anti-terrorism tools by finding new ways to raise, transfer and spend their money. In other cases, the administration has stumbled over legal difficulties and interagency fighting, officials and experts say.

But the most serious problems are fractures and mistrust within the coalition of nations that the United States admits it needs to target financiers of terrorism and to stanch the flow of funding from wealthy donors to extremist causes.

"The international cooperation and focus is dropping, the farther we get from 9/11," said Michael Jacobson, who was a senior advisor in the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence until March 2007. "Some countries lack political will. Others just don't have the basic capacity to govern their countries, much lesscreate a viable financial intelligence unit."

Many current and former officials and experts say that because of political, legal, cultural and technical problems, the administration-led coalition is deteriorating.

"Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups continue to have access to the funds they need for active and expanded indoctrination, recruitment, maintenance, armament and operations," said Victor D. Comras, a former United Nations terrorism finance official.

Internationally, the sense of urgency over terrorism financing has waned since the 2001 attacks. As political climates have changed and negative perceptions of the United States have risen, key allies are cooperating less, current and former officials say.

In the Middle East and elsewhere, many countries have resisted U.S. pressure to investigate and identify financiers.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other key nations have not taken the necessary steps to crack down on terrorist financing or suspect money flowing across their borders. Other countries, including Afghanistan and some African nations, lack the financial infrastructure to cooperate meaningfully.

Also, the most deadly terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, have cost so little -- often less than $10,000 -- that they are virtually impossible to detect by following a money trail.

Terrorist networks need larger sums to travel, train operatives, bribe government officials, evade capture and expand support bases. Increasingly, however, they are moving funds below the radar of U.S.-led enforcement and intelligence-gathering efforts, officials and experts said.

Cash couriers use donkeys and camels in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, for instance, and private jets are used in oil-rich Persian Gulf kingdoms to move cash, gold and jewels. The networks continue to rely on a centuries-old informal banking system known as hawala, which leaves virtually no trail.

Overall, it is nearly impossible to distinguish funds meant for potential terrorism from legitimate transactions, said a senior State Department official, who, like some of the those interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of prohibitions against commenting on the record on counter-terrorism.

Current and former U.S. officials acknowledge they are struggling, especially because much-needed allies are unwilling or unable to assist.

"It's not as much that we're not properly executing our strategy," said Robert Grenier, a former senior CIA official. "It's that the strategy is of limited utility in countering terrorism financing given the mechanisms that terrorists use."

The effort begins

Thirteen days after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, President Bush announced "a major thrust of our war on terrorism . . . a strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network."

"We will starve the terrorists of funding, turn them against each other, rout them out of their safe hiding places and bring them to justice," Bush said in a Rose Garden speech, flanked by his secretaries of Treasury and State.

Over the next six years, that effort stretched across the federal government, including the CIA, the FBI and the Justice and Homeland Security departments.

The administration also enlisted allies and international organizations such as the United Nations.

In the first years, scores of alleged terrorists and their financiers were identified, and their banks and associates were targeted by officials worldwide. The intelligence-gathering helped catch several important Al Qaeda figures, including Hambali, Southeast Asia chieftain.

Stuart Levey, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in an interview last week that the campaign had deterred would-be financiers and helped uncover terrorism funding sources.

The intelligence-gathering has exerted serious financial stress on Al Qaeda networks, Levey said. As a result of Treasury and U.N. efforts, terrorists have been forced out of the international banking system and into riskier ventures that could ultimately trip them up, Levey said.

"I'm generally very pleased with the overall counter-terrorist financing enterprise, especially with the worldwide pressure we have put on Al Qaeda," he said. "No doubt, there are problems we haven't solved, but we continue to treat them with the urgency they deserve."

Levey, who has made 75 foreign trips since 2004, is widely credited for enlisting help from many governments. But like other current and former officials at Treasury and elsewhere, Levey acknowledged that significant challenges remain, especially on the international front.

A January report by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force said that the international effort has had only limited success in detecting terrorism financing activities. The United States and other participating countries must reexamine how terrorists raise and move money and devise techniques to combat them, said the task force, an international body that sets standards for fighting money-laundering and terrorist financing.

Last June, the Defense Department issued its first report on financial counter-terrorism, and found many shortcomings first cited by a 2002 independent task force of the Council on Foreign Relations. Both recommended establishment of a czar or agency to coordinate all U.S. agencies and report directly to the White House. Both also called for a U.S.-led international organization dedicated to investigating terrorist financing.

"To be successful, the U.S. must address the problem . . . under the guidance and leadership of one overarching organization," said the report by the Pentagon's School of Advanced Military Studies at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

In the absence of such reforms, many say, the U.S. agencies involved remain mired in infighting over who should lead the effort. "There is not a lot of talking," said one recently departed senior Treasury official. "There is a lot of elbowing . . . and there isn't any cooperation."

Levey and other agency representatives dispute that characterization. But the Government Accountability Office and other watchdog organizations have reached similar conclusions, regarding domestic and international issues.

Bush's vow 'oversold'

Some experts said that the financial war on terrorism simply can't deliver on what the Bush administration promised.

"It's been way oversold," said Grenier, who heads global security consulting for Kroll, a company that advises governments.

Grenier, who retired from the CIA in 2006 after 27 years, most recently as director of the agency's Counterterrorism Center, said the government had exaggerated the successes of financial enforcement while downplaying obstacles: "There's been a lot of work done on it, a lot of focus. But as a method for identifying and capturing terrorists, it has not been significant."

The results of the campaign are difficult to quantify.

But in recent years, few terrorist financiers of significance have been arrested.

Al Qaeda's resurgence in the tribal belt of Pakistan and elsewhere in the world has been fueled by various methods of financing and moving money.

Immediately after Sept. 11, the Treasury Department began freezing the assets of many individuals and entities with suspected links to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and affiliates, barring them from doing business in the United States.

In many cases, the United Nations issued its own financial blocking orders, which require member states to enforce them in an attempt to deny terrorists access to the international financial system.

But in recent years, U.S. and U.N. designations have slowed to a trickle, records show. Last year, only nine individuals accused of Al Qaeda-related activities were designated by Treasury. And some of those designations describe older acts that occurred as far back as the mid-1990s, mostly by low-level operatives.

Moreover, even when blocking orders are issued by U.N. officials, giving an international stamp to U.S. efforts, many countries are unable or reluctant to act.

Despite hesitance to criticize a key U.S. ally, many current and former officials said that vast contributions from Saudi Arabia and other wealthy gulf donors have continued.

Saudi Arabia has promised since 2003 to enact major financial reforms, but has yet to implement many of them, several senior U.S. officials said. The Saudis have not established an accredited financial intelligence unit to detect suspicious transactions or an oversight group to prevent donations to extremist causes, current and former officials said.

Other countries lack even the most basic financial infrastructure to participate.

One African government official told a visiting counter- terrorism delegation that his nation had not disseminated U.N.-mandated blocking orders for hundreds of suspected Al Qaeda operatives and entities because its various agencies lacked Internet connectivity. Asked why the government hadn't distributed printed copies, he said his office was allowed only one printer cartridge a month and didn't want to waste it.

"When you hear problems like that, you almost want to give up," said one former U.S. counter-terrorism official.

"We're spending billions of dollars, and a toner cartridge can affect whether a whole country implements the list."



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.


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
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.

No comments: