OBAMA HAS BENT OVER AND KISSED THE RANCID ASSES OF THE 9-11 INVADERS MORE THAN THE SAUDIS' PARTNER, GEORGE W. BUSH EVER DID!
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.
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
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
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!
*
Mass
protests spread in Middle East as Washington reassures Israel, Arab dictators
By Bill Van Auken
15 February 2011
15 February 2011
Inspired by the Egyptian people’s
overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, protests continued to spread in the Middle East on
Monday, as Washington scrambled to reassure Israel and pro-US regimes in the
region of its continued support.
For a fourth straight day,
demonstrators in cities throughout Yemen clashed with security forces and mobs
of plainclothes policemen and hired thugs posing as supporters of the US-backed
government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
In the capital city of Sana’a, the
anti-government demonstrations grew in size on Monday. The AFP news agency said
that over 3,000 people attempted to march towards the city’s Tahrir
(Liberation) Square to demand the ouster of President Saleh, who has ruled the
country for more than 32 years.
As they neared the square, they were
attacked by riot police using batons, rifle butts and electric cattle prods.
Mobs of plainclothes police thugs then attacked demonstrators with daggers and
broken bottles.
Among those demonstrating were the
country’s lawyers dressed in black robes. The protesters chanted, “The people
want the regime to step down,” “leave Saleh” and “After Mubarak, Ali.”
Also on Monday, the police and thugs
broke up a demonstration of several hundred students at Sana’a University.
Security forces have blocked key streets with razor wire to prevent protesters
from marching on the presidential palace.
Scores were reported injured in the
repression, some of them suffering stab wounds. Many more have been detained by
the security forces.
“Police and bullies hurled stones at
the protesters fed up with bad living conditions, high unemployment rates,
widespread corruption at the public institutions and oppression,” the Yemen
Post reported. “They also beat them with stun batons, and police also fired
live ammunition in the air in an attempt to disperse the protesters.”
In the southern city of Taaz, at least
a dozen people were injured in attacks by police firing tear gas and assaulting
protesters with electric batons.
In the southern port city of Aden, dock
workers, who have waged a long battle against the regime, took the lead,
storming the offices of the Yemen Gulf of Aden Port Corporation and seizing top
officials, including the agency’s chairman, Mohamed Bin Aefan.
“We have had it with corrupt officials
and it’s time to tell them to leave,” Ali Bin Yehya, a port worker told Al
Jazeera. “What happened in Egypt and Tunisia motivated the workers to demand
their rights.”
The Saleh regime has pursued the same
tactic as Mubarak’s dictatorship in Egypt, ordering police to assault
journalists in an attempt to block any coverage of the repression. BBC
correspondent Abdullah Gorab reported live on Monday: “I’m bleeding from my
head. The policemen who were accompanying a prominent official figure, Hafez
Meayad, were running after me after they asked more than 50 protesters from the
ruling party to hit us. They took my phone and my cameramen’s phone. They beat
any correspondent who tries to film the attack on the protesters. This is the
current regime now in Yemen. No rule, no law. I’m bleeding now as I escape from
the police.”
The demonstrations have escalated
despite the agreement of opposition parties to accept Saleh’s offer
of“dialogue.” In response to growing unrest and the example of the Egyptian
uprising, the Yemeni dictator announced that he was dropping his bid to change
the country’s constitution to allow him to become “president for life,” and
pledged that his son, the chief of the Republican Guard, would not succeed him.
Opponents of the regime, however, point out that similar pledges were made in
2006 and then forgotten.
At the same time, the regime’s National
Defense Council has unveiled plans for a new law giving it unfettered power to
tap phone lines, open mail and monitor electronic communications, provoking
even greater popular anger.
The poorest country in the Arab world,
Yemen has an unemployment rate of around 40 percent, with some 45 percent of
its nearly 20 million people living on $2 a day or less. These appalling
conditions have been exacerbated in recent months by a sharp rise in food
prices.
Already facing a separatist movement in
the south of the country and a protracted armed conflict with Shia forces in
the north, Yemen has been the focus of an escalating US military and CIA
intervention, ostensibly directed against Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula.
Even as repression mounts in Yemen, the
US military is expanding its training of Yemeni security forces. Citing
Pentagon sources, the Associated Press reported Monday that Washington is
launching a $75 million program to train Yemen’s counter-terror troops, a force
now numbering 300. The program is designed to double the size of the force,
which is a key component of Saleh’s repressive apparatus.
Demonstrations also erupted Monday in
the Persian Gulf island kingdom of Bahrain, which serves as the headquarters of
the US Fifth Fleet and the Pentagon’s Naval Forces Central Command. The “Day of
Rage” called by opponents of the Sunni monarchy which rules the predominantly
Shia territory saw clashes erupt in two Bahraini villages as security forces
imposed an intense crackdown.
Dozens of people were injured Sunday
night and Monday as police sought to break up protests using teargas, rubber
bullets and clubs. In the village of Nuweidrat, police attacked some 2,000
people who sat down in the street demanding the release of Shiite detainees and
an end to the oppression of the majority population.
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.
Shiites in Bahrain, while making up 70
percent of the population and 80 percent of the workforce, face discrimination
in terms of jobs and housing and are severely underrepresented in a largely
powerless parliament. They are barred from employment by the country’s largest
employer, the security forces, which imports Sunni Muslims from abroad and then
grants them citizenship as a reward for repressing the population.
The eruptions in Bahrain are of
particular concern to the Saudi monarchy, Washington’s key ally in the region.
The Saudi regime oppresses its own Shia population, which constitutes the
majority in the country’s oil-producing Eastern Province.
The regime in Bahrain is, if anything,
more ossified than that of Mubarak in Egypt. Power is concentrated in the hands
of King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and the country’s prime minister, Sheikh
Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, the king’s uncle, who has held the post for
nearly 40 years.
In a desperate bid to bribe the
population into halting the protests, the al-Khalifa family dynasty has
promised to award 1,000 dinars ($2,650) to every family in Bahrain and has
suggested that it may release minors who have been imprisoned since a crackdown
last year. It has also said it will rescind plans for budget cuts, demanded by
international lending agencies, and instead spend another $417 million on food
subsidies.
As the demonstrations spread throughout
the Arab world, Washington focused its efforts on reassuring its principal ally
in the region, Israel, as well as the remaining US-backed Arab dictatorships
that they can rely on US support.
Admiral Mike Mullen, chief of the US
Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Jordan on Sunday for talks with King Abdullah II
and his Jordanian counterpart, Lieutenant General Meshaal Al-Zabn. He then went
to Israel for discussions with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli
President Shimon Peres and the chiefs of the Israeli military.
On the eve of the visit, a Pentagon
spokesman said that the chief US military officer would discuss “security
issues of mutual concern and reassure both these key partners of the US
military’s commitment to that partnership.” The key “concern” is quelling the
Egyptian revolution and preventing its spread throughout the region.
Mullen told the Israelis, “our
relations with the Egyptian army haven’t changed. Friendship at such a
challenging time is very important.”
For his part, Netanyahu said on Monday
that “an earthquake is shaking the Arab world,” and that Israel’s nuclear-armed
military is “ready for all eventualities.” He described the Israeli military
as“the foundation of our existence.”
Mullen’s tour was supplemented by a
visit to Amman by Undersecretary of State Bill Burns. President Obama was
reported to have called the Jordanian king, while Vice President Joe Biden was
on the phone over the weekend to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has
also faced mounting demonstrations over unemployment, living conditions and
corruption, and to the ruling emirs in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
*
OBAMA,
BUSH, HILLARY AND BILLARY… ALL KISSING THE ASSES OF MUSLIMS DICTATORS!
US
SUpreme
Court declines to hear case of 9/11 families
By Joe Kishore
30 June 2009
30 June 2009
The US Supreme Court on Monday declined
to hear a case brought by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia, four
members of the Saudi royal family, a Saudi bank and a charity. The action lets
stand a lower court ruling that the Saudi members cannot be held liable in US
courts.
The Obama administration supported the Saudi monarchs, who were
accused of financially supporting several of the individuals involved in the
September 11, 2001 attacks. The administration last month intervened to ask the
high court to reject the appeal.
The family members claim that Saudi
princes contributed to charities that funded Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers.
In August 2008, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 district court ruling that the
Saudi officials and entities were protected under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act. The families argued that lower courts had made conflicting
rulings on the scope of sovereign immunity, and that the Supreme Court should
therefore intervene.
The Justice Department has sought
furiously to prevent the release of documents assembled by lawyers for the
families, which, according to a New York Times report,“provide new
evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups
by members of the Saudi royal family.” The government has had copies of the
documents destroyed and has sought to prevent judges from even looking at them.
The US government has worked
systematically to conceal from the American people evidence of Saudi support
for at least two of the hijackers, part of a broader cover-up of the many
unanswered questions that still surround the 9/11 attacks.
The documents gathered by the 9/11
families—including a classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry
into the attacks—likely include material on Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid
al-Mihdhar, two Saudi nationals who were aboard the planes that crashed on
9/11. They were known by US intelligence to be members of Al Qaeda at least
since 1999.
Despite their previous association, the
two men were allowed into the US, where they found accommodations with the help
of a Saudi intelligence agent (Omar al-Bayoumi) and, later, an FBI asset (Abdussattar
Shaikh). Al-Bayoumi received financing from Princess Haifa, the wife of the
Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar.
The suit filed by the families focuses
solely on the role of Saudi Arabia. However, the more fundamental question is
the role of sections of the American state. The Saudi royal family has had long
and intimate ties with American intelligence, and the broader exposure of Saudi
links to the attacks threatens to unravel the entire official story of the
September 11 attacks.
*
Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families
By Barry Grey
26 June 2009
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.
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
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
Basics Project: Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam
http://www.basicsproject.org/educational_cd_series.htm#Understanding_the_Threat_of_Radical_Islam
###
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".
Once safely
disembarked, some of the world's richest princes were among 170 VIP guests at
last night's glittering banquet at the end of the Mall.
They included
the Interior minister, Prince Naif, responsible for law and order and
personally concerned with the upkeep of Saudi Arabia's conservative Wahhabi
tradition, and the Foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, US-educated and
supportive of reform, although anxious it should come from within the kingdom
rather than being imposed by outsiders.
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.
In a rare
concession to formal protocol, Gordon Brown paid £3,000 of taxpayer's money for
white tie and tails for the event. He has refused to wear such an outfit for
the Chancellor's Mansion House speech in London in June, insisting on a lounge
suit instead. "The dress code for the event this evening is set by the
Queen and the Prime Minister will abide by the dress code," said the Prime
Minister's spokesman yesterday.
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.