I Guess This Means the Invasion of Saudi Arabia is a "GO"!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tell me where to look. Assume that I'm a brainless moron. I can't handle simple tasks like tying my own shoes. Unmasking far reaching government conspiracies is definitely too much for me.

So help me out here. Tell me where to look, and please be specific.
 
War is in the will. Have we been fighting in the right place?

Yes, if Iraq becomes a modern democracy, it will have a very positive influence on the region in the long run, and indeed that may be a way to resolve the conflict. But before you can heal your enemy, you must bring him to his knees. Cases of study: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan.

We must crush their will first. Then we do the Marshall Plan MkII. What we are doing right now is the equivalent of invading and rebuilding Duche's Italy with our own money while Germany sends Hitlerjugend commanded by Otto Scorzeni's across the Alps. FUBAR.

Mecca and Messina? Holy cities? Fear of insulting other Muslims? Screw them. How about 200 Mt pure plutonium joy at each location? If their god is so powerful and their victory inevitable, let them go ahead and explain how it is they are so whipped.

I am starting to get really fed up with religious zealotry in the 3rd millenium, after Man has split the atom, built machines in his own image, and set foot on another planet.
 
Well... we all can't be as scholarly and well informed on the infrastructure of the middle east as Bush whose policy is: "all Arabs are alike..... these Arabs did a bad thing, so we should invade an Arab country."

First, Bush didn’t propose invading Saudi, you did. So, does that make you less informed than him since he hasn’t done or proposed it? Please, can you clarify Bush’s lack of knowledge with hard facts rather than an emotional diatribe?

I’m not a Bush fan either, but your quotes read straight out of the “throw a liberal tantrum” playbook. Post something of substance about him and his policies. For instance...

In Saudi Arabia, mainstream schools openly teach hatred of the US. Their clerics call for young Saudis to go to Iraq to fight the US, and all Bush does is cover up the truth. And before you pull the trigger on that last statement..... go and search the web and find out the content of the 28 pages Bush had censored from a classified report which detailed the saudi support and involvement with Al qaeda.

Do you know this for a fact? Have you been to Saudi before? Do you know anything about their schooling? How does Bush cover up the truth? Does he censor each newspaper in the U.S.? If the truth is hidden, how come you know this alleged truth? Give us a link to a believable source that can verify your statement. It doesn't even have tobe a peer-reviewed source, which is standard for good objective scientific debate, it jsut needs to be a place that I can actually see some reason/logic/facts displayed and cited.

Don't try to sell me that garbage about what we "risk" invading SA. When you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to risk. News flash: the Muslims already hate us.

Please, enlighten me about the Saudi people, after all, it isn’t like my family lived there for a few years or anything like that. I have absolutely no idea about how that culture works or what the possible ramification are of an invasion. Please, drop the knowledge bomb on me, I am waiting with giddy anticipation. I’m sure you have spent time there and know quite a bit about the average person and their feelings. While you are at it, let's talk about the ramifications of an oil freeze by the other muslim countries after we invade SA. Certainly you have got this figured out. Pull the trigger and post the big one with your plan so we can all learn something. (In case you need clarification, that is a satire of a liberal tantrum except asking relevant questions with absoultely no personal malice in it at all.)

As for "holy sites," why do you think the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center? In their minds THAT was OUR holiest of sites.

Yep, and look what happened. You can’t give people an event that focuses their resolve unless you are willing to break that resolve with the utmost prejudice. Goliad, the Alamo, Concord, etc. Hatred and devotion are powerful when used in violence.

I am starting to get really fed up with religious zealotry in the 3rd millenium, after Man has split the atom, built machines in his own image, and set foot on another planet.

Just curious, how do any of those thing lessen people’s religious inclinations. If anything the farther we look, the more questions can’t be answered. An interesting topic and one that will result in thread lock. PM me, I’d like to hear your reasoning because a guy at work was debating just the opposite view with me the other day!
 
How about 200 Mt pure plutonium joy at each location? If their god is so powerful and their victory inevitable, let them go ahead and explain how it is they are so whipped.
I saw that some Muslims characterized Katrina as a demonstration of God's displeasure with the infidel Americans. Is this a way of applying Muslim logic against Muslims?
 
I saw that some Muslims characterized Katrina as a demonstration of God's displeasure with the infidel Americans. Is this a way of applying Muslim logic against Muslims?

Communication is only possible when at least one side is ready to speak in a language the other side can understand. If their chosen language is violence, then let's communicate.

How is that any different than dealing with Nazi Germany? Both have a virulent zealous exclusive ideology, both have organization and resources, both consider civilians combatants, both advocate total war to the bitter end. After the Nazis hit London, Coventry, etc., they got Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc. Germany was reborn in the ashes of a complete and utter collapse. Same goes with Japan. Why do we expect that something else will suffice with the jihadists?

Just curious, how do any of those thing lessen people’s religious inclinations.

There will always be those who choose the emotional comfort of a fantasy to the starkness of reality. That is even more so in a complex, changing, challenging world. Thus I am not surprised that some get soured up on reality. What is disconcerting is the numbers and influence of the self-lobotomists. That is why I respect Amnish people - they want to live in simpler times, and they do, but they don't come blowing me up because I like my computer, new car, DVD player etc. But when jihadists fly planes in my skyscrapers, and when local fundamentalists insist my public schools teach Intelligent Design, I have a BIG problem.
 
the humming is so loud

the drones are so well programmed.

sure, there's nothing to see here , move along.

terrorists? no, none in SA. no possible way there could be anything worth getting riled up about over there.

they're actually poor as dirt anyway, forget them.

look here i got a shiny object ! ..... and the drones are distracted...

we'll end up seeing it eventually, another sizable terrorist attack in the US. i do have confidence our govt is doing just enough to prevent anything massive, but we'll see some buses blow up or something eventually- and the bomber will be from SA AGAin, and we will blame the neighboring countries that harbor the Terrorist camps..


NOTHING going on in SA is encouraging, funding, assisting any of this anti american behavior, they need us too much, they love us.
 
NOTHING going on in SA is encouraging, funding, assisting any of this anti american behavior, they need us too much, they love us.
Anybody wanna buy a bridge? Used only on Sundays by little old ladies on their way to church.

Better to occupy and close the cities of Mecca and Medina, much history and art resides there, and their destuction would lessen all our cultures beyond measure. But if to the fire they must be commited to save the culture that will take us off planet for good, well, lets "get it on and get it over with". War is a cruel business, and the crueler it is, the sooner it is done with.
 
Personally, I think they all want to see you me and all of our children dead. They hate us they hate our way of life they hate, freedom, personal choice with respect to religion and everything else, and individualism.

If it had been up to me I would have taken the area that contains most of the oil fields in the middle east, and then I would have left Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to ROT in HELL. Nation building????? Horse manure, there is a reason that despotism is the only form of government to work in those countries. Yep we would have had a new state called East Texas, and all the damn oil we could use.

Bomb them all back to the stone age and take all the oil fields.

France and Germany could throw rotten cheese and bitter beer at us and Russia could have cried.

If Iran keeps up building Nukes, which they will if we let the EU negotiate with them (who do you think gave them the equipment and know how in the first place, France, Germany), we will have to go in again anyway and by then we will be facing nuclear weapons.


Folks keep whinning its the poor oppressed people the down trodden they have no choice but to attack us big meanies cause they are starving.

NO! Every one of the Terrorists that has attacked us is from the Upper class, well educated, westernized, speak foreign languages, form rich families, Osama Bin Laden, wealthy well educated, Aiman al Zawahiri a doctor speaks 4 languages from a wealthy family, Mohammed Atta, wealthy Egyptian well educated all of the hijackers were, all of the London attackers, all well educated in the west. They hate us they want to kill us because we are not Muslums, and they consider us an affront to Allah, unworthy to breathe the air on this planet. They smile in our face and wait with a long knife to stab us in the back. Wake up folks.

The people attacking us ARE NOT POOR DOWNTRODDEN MEMBERS of their society. The wealthy the elite are in on this In Saudi Arabia, in Iran, and every western nation where they have immigrated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many of the Saudi people are fundamentalists of a rabid nature. True, many of them support and fund terrorism. True, most of the hijackers were natives of Saudi Arabia. But the problem lies with the average inhabitants of the nation, not it's leaders.

To eliminate the source of fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia would require that we destroy the civillian population. But the U.S. can NOT go into a foreign country and attack the civilian poplation. I doubt we have the means, and I sincerely hope we never have the intent.

Attacking a government is another matter. Governments can be morally attacked, when our national interests call for such. Governments can, as a practical matter, be defeated (witness Saddam).

But in the case of Saudia Arabia, eliminating the political leadership doesn't solve the problem. The problem lies with the people, not the government.
While from the news it seems that your premises about the Saudi people are true, I have to disagree with your conclusion. We have attacked citizens before,and done so under what I think were perfectly moral circumstances. We did so in Japan and Germany because in Germany at least, the same problem existed: the citizens were just as responsible as the government for the actions of their nation. This modern concept that attacking citizens is morally wrong is ignores the fact that whole groups of people can indeed be quite evil and malicious,and holding them responsible for this is not wrong. If you hold that only governments can be held responsible for the actions of nations, than the entire concept of WWII strategic bombing of cities would have to be accepted as morally wrong, and I certainly don't see it as such.
We certainly have the means to commit war against global radical Islamic states,as witnessed by all of the "instant sunshine" comments that have a grain of truth in them. We do possess the ability.
My only caveat at this point would be that it's difficult to definitively prove your premise that a majority of the Saudi people support terrorism or war against us. Should that ever be made known as an objective fact, I would have no problem going to war against their citizenry.
 
We certainly have the means to commit war against global radical Islamic states,as witnessed by all of the "instant sunshine" comments that have a grain of truth in them. We do possess the ability.

This is a great forum for reading about firearms (and getting me to buy more!), and so I'm sorry I have to stop lurking on this topic, but I can't remain silent when I see statements that support killing civillians.

Besides the fact that attacking a Muslim holy site would turn the entire Muslim world, all 1.2 billion (and righteously so) against the US as opposed to a small percentage of radicals, the moral argument here is bad.

If it's justified to bomb civillians because of the positions they support, then I guess every member of the KKK in America should be executed without trial, and have his house burned down and all his children killed too. Punishing people for their ideas is as un-American as it gets, and if you open up warfare to people who support, rather than those who actively practice, violence, that is precisely what you are doing. There is also the fact that, in advocating bombing civillians, you would have to justify killing a bunch of kids for what their parents did. In that light, no, the carpet bombing in WWII was not morally justified. Necessary? Maybe, but the fact that we found something necessary has no relationship to whether or not it is moral to do it.

Killing a bunch of people who do not and never have directly and personally caused harm to others is always unjust. I don't see any logic in "collective punishment" or in imposing death sentences on large numbers of people based on what some percentage of those people claim to support.
 
Poodleshooter said:
If you hold that only governments can be held responsible for the actions of nations, than the entire concept of WWII strategic bombing of cities would have to be accepted as morally wrong, and I certainly don’t see it as such.…

It was morally wrong, though we may excuse our elders for mistakes made in the fog of war. If I recall correctly, the postwar strategic bombing survey revealed that strategic bombing was largely ineffective, both physically and psychologically, thus the shift to today’s doctrine of precision bombing and minimizing collateral damage.

~G. Fink
 
But the problem lies with the average inhabitants of the nation, not it's leaders.

Well, I guess there's a first time for everything :rolleyes: :barf:

I suppose spreading Wahabism and funding madrassas (sp?) all over the planet doesn't make them as culpable as the average Bedouin who looks after himself and his family? :banghead:

There's a reason we complain about the public schools right here in our country, because they are supremely effective at teaching propaganda and nothing else. Thankfully, we haven't exported those throughout the world. Now tell me again how the House of Saud isn't culpable for the entire movement?
 
Tell me where to look. Assume that I'm a brainless moron. I can't handle simple tasks like tying my own shoes. Unmasking far reaching government conspiracies is definitely too much for me.

You said that, not me:\

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml

Bush Won't Reveal Saudi 9/11 Info

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP / CBS)


(CBS/AP) President Bush refused on Tuesday to release a congressional report alleging possible links between Saudi Arabian officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers. The White House sought to question a Saudi citizen who befriended two of the hijackers.

The information is widely believed to center on Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers. Saudi Arabia has vehemently denied supporting the hijackers.

Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.

Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.

The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.

////

House and Senate members released the full, 850-page report finding a series of errors and miscommunications kept U.S. authorities from pursuing clues before the attacks. The 28-page section dealing with "sensitive national security matters" was almost entirely redacted.





http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030804/scheer20030729

Read Between the Lines of Those 28 Missing Pages

Love the truth; it ultimately bows to no master. Even for the President of the United States, the commander in chief of the world's most powerful propaganda machine, deceptions inevitably unravel.

In the last week we've moved from the 16 deceitful words in George W. Bush's State of the Union speech to the 28 White House-censored pages in the congressional report that dealt with Saudi Arabia's role in the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States.

Yet even in its sanitized version, the bipartisan report, long delayed by an embarrassed White House, makes clear that the United States should have focused on Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, in the aftermath of September 11.

As we know, but our government tends to ignore, fifteen of the nineteen hijackers came from Saudi Arabia; none came from Iraq. Leaks from the censored portions of the report indicate that at least some of those Saudi terrorists were in close contact with--and financed by--members of the Saudi elite, extending into the ranks of the royal family.

The report finds no such connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists. It is now quite clear that the President--unwilling to deal with the ties between Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden--pursued Hussein as a politically convenient scapegoat. By drawing attention away from the Muslim fanatic networks centered in Saudi Arabia, Bush diverted the war against terror. That seems to be the implication of the 28 pages, which the White House demanded be kept from the American people when the full report was released.

Even many in Bush's own party are irritated that the President doesn't think we can be trusted with the truth.

"I went back and read every one of those pages thoroughly," Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on "Meet the Press." "My judgment is 95 percent of that information could be declassified, become uncensored so the American people would know."

Asked why he thought the pages were excised, Shelby, a leading pro-Administration conservative, said, "I think it might be embarrassing to international relations."

Quite an embarrassment if the censored pages reveal that the Bush Administration covered up the Saudi connection to the terrorist attacks.

Obviously alluding to Saudi Arabia, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), the former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said Sunday, "High officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and then execute the tragedy of September 11."

On Monday, Graham, responding to reports that Saudi Arabia would welcome making public some of the pages, called on Bush to fully declassify "the currently censored pages."

Newsweek, relying on anonymous government sources, reported Monday that the "connections between high-level Saudi princes and associates of the hijackers" included helping Al Qaeda operatives enter the United States and financing their residence in San Diego, where they plotted their infamous attacks.

Remember too that it was well known that Saudi charities with ties to the royal House of Saud were bankrolling the Al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan--even as George H.W. Bush visited the kingdom shortly after his son was elected, eager to secure contracts for his then-employer, the Carlyle Group.

The fact is, Riyadh, unlike Baghdad, has long been a key hotbed of extremist Muslim organizing. By shielding and nurturing our relationship with the Saudi sheiks, Bush & Son have provided cover for those who support terror.

After all, is it really likely that career-conscious FBI and CIA officers would be willing to criticize possible Al Qaeda-House of Saud links when the President's father is out hustling business ties with the same family?

Even after September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration immediately protected Saudis in the United States, including allowing members of the large Bin Laden family who were in this country to be spirited home on their government's aircraft before they could be questioned. This at a time when many immigrants from all over the world were being detained arbitrarily.

Bush has used September 11 as an excuse to turn this country upside down, making a hash of civil liberties and bankrupting our federal government with unprecedented deficit spending on war and its materiel. Before we do any more irrevocable damage in the name of an open-ended "war against evil," we have a right and a responsibility to confront the uncensored truth of what happened that black day--no matter what powerful people are brought to account.
 
Last edited:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/000201.html

FREE THE CAPITOL HILL 28!

Jane Galt objects to the release of the 28 censored pages about Saudi involvement in the 9-11 massacres on the grounds that, once we acknowledge publicly that the Saudi Royal Family was directly responsible for the murder of 3000 Americans, we will have no alternative but to go to war, conquer the Kingdom, and then face the rage of the "Arab street" at the spectacle of infidel boots marching through Mecca and Medina.

I don't agree with her analysis, but she deserves credit for putting the real issue on the table; the Administration's "protecting sources and methods" story just won't wash.

I think we can face the facts without going to war. No doubt, Saudi participation in that attack, if verified, would constitute a casus belli; but the existence of a casus belli does not obligate the injured state to go to war. The Iranian hostage-taking of 1979,, for example, was a casus belli.

Perhaps Jane means only that releasing the information would make war politically inevitable in terms of domestic U.S. politics. I doubt it. It would make it politically necessary for the Bush Administration to do change its stance toward the Saudi monarchy and its support for the worldwide Wahhabbi movement, but "doing something" could and would stop far short of invasion.

After all, who but the neocons and radio talk show hosts and warbloggers would actually support invading Saudi Arabia? Not the Bush team, not the corporate sector, not the Democrats, not the mass media, and not the majority of the people, in the absence of the kind of all-out propaganda drive that led up to the invasion of Iraq.

Now an argument could be made -- and it's one I'm not professionally competent to judge -- that the US national interest is best served by appeasing the Saudis rather than confronting them. That argument would be politically very unpopular if the report were released; that is why the Bush team is so intent on not releasing it.

But if this President is so incapable of leadership that his only means of restraining popular fury is to keep the public in the dark about who attacked us on 9-11, that's the best argument I've heard yet for getting ourselves a new President.




http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15409


On July 29, Prince Saud el-Faisal paid an extraordinary visit to the Bush White House. For an hour, he and George W. Bush discussed the 28-page section of the joint Congressional report on 9/11 that evidently implicates agents of his country’s government in the terrorist attack. The prince’s ostensible reason for coming to see the President -- whose family has long maintained close connections with the Saudi royals -- was to ask Mr. Bush to declassify those 28 pages because, as he declared at a press conference: "We have nothing to hide, and we do not seek, nor do we need, to be shielded."

That glibly ridiculous assertion is contradicted by the repressive habits of his family’s autocratic regime, which has a lot to hide from its own people as well as ours. Besides, the prince knew before he landed in Washington that the President would decline his plea. //

As Senator Charles Schumer suggested, the prince visited the President to improve the kingdom’s image rather than to inform the American public.









9/11 Report Ups Heat On Saudis, Washington
By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD STAFF
The Bush administration, already embattled over its use of doubtful intelligence in building its case for the war against Iraq, is gearing up for renewed scrutiny over reports that it has hampered investigations of the September 11 attacks.

A congressional report on the attacks is set to be released in the middle of next week, containing new information about American government mistakes and about Saudi financing of terrorism, according to Capitol Hill sources. The administration has been fighting with Congress for more than six months over the content of the report, which was drafted last December and has been undergoing security vetting since then, prompting accusations of a cover-up.

////"They have been throwing roadblocks and not cooperating with the investigations into 9/11, so it makes you wonder whether they have something to hide.... We have to get to the bottom of it, and this means unfettered access."


But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, another New York Democrat, countered that the administration had in fact been stonewalling the 9/11 Commission both by withholding information and by asking to have "minders" present during interviews of officials.

"The last time I heard about government minders was under Saddam Hussein," Nadler told the Forward. "There is a clear pattern of cover-up toward this commission... Because of this attitude and because of the way it has dealt with intelligence on Iraq, it will be very difficult to give any credibility to what the administration has to say."

In the meantime, speculation has mounted about the content of the congressional panel's 800-page final report. Its classified version was completed on December 10; since then, intelligence and law enforcement officials have been vetting its final, public version.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the inquiry and is now a Democratic presidential contender, has been the most outspoken critic of the administration's attitude, publicly accusing the administration of using national security as an excuse to block "embarrassments" and speaking openly of a "cover-up."

Graham has urged the White House to expedite the release of the report and to declassify large parts of it.

Lawmakers familiar with the content refused to speculate on precisely how much would be made public when it is released.

Even the Republican co-chairman of the joint congressional inquiry, Florida Rep. Porter Goss, while not endorsing the cover-up accusations, has complained about the administration's unwillingness to allow public disclosure of crucial information.

/////

Aftergood said he believed the report would include some elements about the highly sensitive issue of the Saudi government's role in terrorism. There is speculation that the Bush administration has been trying to avoid declassifying some damning information about Saudi Arabia.

Although he has not said so explicitly, Graham appeared to be alluding to Saudi Arabia when he told CNN on Monday [July 13] that a chapter in the report dealing with foreign government support for Al Qaeda was likely to be kept classified.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.07.18/news2.html
 
Last edited:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/list.htm

Saudi Arabia: Number 1 Terrorist State

Appeasement of Saudi Arabia even in the aftermath of September 11 is absurd and borders on treason. It does nothing to help the Moslem world come out of its state of deep denial for the responsibility for the worst terrorist outrage of all time. This denial is as irrational as the culture and religion that caused it. The real winner of Western appeasement has been Osama bin Laden and like-minded religious fanatics. Brezhinski's "excellent idea" (going back to President Carter) of using fundamentalist Islam to fight Soviet Communism has backfired by failing to grasp Islam's inherent link with violence and intolerance. The US helped create bin Laden then ignored the problem in order to appease Saudi Arabia.

Jonathan Pollard tried to warn both the US and Israel of what was going on and got "nailed to the cross" for treason. Turns out he wasn't the one selling out US Intelligence, the real culprits were a pair of WASP's nailed in the 1990's, not a Jew. But the fact he was a Jew was a ready excuse to silence a fair inquiry. Threatening Americans has become a worthy goal for Ashcroft and Bush.

Saudi Arabia is still the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Spreading the Wahhabi Cult across the Muslim world (including many Muslims in America) and teaching hate and intolerance, even of non-Wahhabi Muslims. The hate being taught in schools and mosques must be ended. The American "crack whore" addiction to cheap oil must end or we will continue to sell-out everything we stand for just to get the next fix. $3 a gallon for gas is cheaper then the next September 11.

Now Saudi Arabia itself may be the target of its own terrorists, as they seemed to have lost control. And the US seems to be planning to use terrorists against Iran. This is stupid because that will also go out of control.

Quoting Henry Kissinger, "The Saudis are pro-American, they have to operate in a difficult region, and ultimately we can manage them." Guess the homicide bombings in Saudi Arabia and the inside help the terrorists got from Saudi officials has proven his point wrong. Unless President Bush stops covering up for Saudi Arabia and using terrorists to bolster American policy, the War on Terrorism is a sick joke.

UNDESIRABLE INFLUENCE: Muslims are regulars at the White House
The Truth About Jonathan Pollard: protecting Saudi Arabia
Are Muslim Americans Victimized? by Daniel Pipes
Q: Can Saudi Arabia (or Islam in general) ever tolerate democracy?

A: "No...In democracy, the elected parliament ranks supreme. It can make anything legal illegal, and vice-versa. In Islam what God specified as Haram (illegal), or Halal (legal), cannot be changed by any parliament, or even by the whole population. These imperatives of right and wrong in Islam are unchangeable." God being the notions of the self-proclaimed prophet Mohammed. For more on this see:


Saudi Arabia fires clerics to cover-up terrorism.
The Saudi 9/11?
Saudi nationals join fighting against U.S. in Iraq
The Koran Debunked
Most American Muslims or at least those groups that speak for them often support terrorism. With Bush it's just greed and oil. With Liberals it's support anything anti-Western and moral relativism. But to continue to ignore the role of Islam, in particular Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalism, is foolish. Quoting Ibn Warraq, the author of Why I Am Not A Muslim:

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism...Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari'a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals....Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world...Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first allegiance is to Islam...they must break the laws of the infidels, and only follow the Law of God, the Shari'a, Islamic Law.
 
http://www.sandiego-online.com/issues/september03/featurec0903.shtml


Though a report on the congressional probe (with 28 censored pages) was finally released in late July, after months of political haggling, there appears to be belated and only tepid interest by our federal government in following the 9/11 money trail to Saudi Arabia.



Terror Two Years After
As we mark the second anniversary of 9/11, questions remain about San Diego’s links to terrorists operating on U.S. soil

By Jamie Reno


Omar Al-Bayoumi, A friend of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego
This month marks the two-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. But do we now have a clear understanding of all the facts behind the horrible events of September 11, 2001? In many ways, no. Though a report on the congressional probe (with 28 censored pages) was finally released in late July, after months of political haggling, there appears to be belated and only tepid interest by our federal government in following the 9/11 money trail to Saudi Arabia.

Terrorists could not have pulled off such an ambitious offensive without substantial financial and logistical support, here and abroad. However, countless intelligence leads that might help solve this mystery appear to have been underinvestigated or completely overlooked by the FBI, particularly in San Diego.

In the past few weeks, San Diego Magazine has interviewed a half-dozen people with various financial or other connections to the San Diego–based terrorists or to the enigmatic, moneyed San Diego Saudis who knew the hijackers. Not one had ever been contacted by bureau agents.

Serious questions about the 9/11 investigation, including accusations of Saudi favoritism, are coming from liberals and conservatives alike. Congress collectively called the events leading up to the tragedy the “biggest intelligence failure in American history.” And Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, a political watchdog group that had previously set its sights on President Clinton, wonders whether national energy and economic policy have influenced the war on terrorism.

“Are we laying off of Saudi Arabia because of the links between the American oil industry and the Saudis?” Klayman asked reporters after a recent court hearing. “That’s the kind of information the American people need to know.”

Looking for answers to Klayman’s question, it seems logical to start in San Diego, where even the Congressional report suggests the connections to al Qaeda and the Saudi government are potentially profound.

Most San Diegans know about Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar and Hani Hanjoor, the three Saudi hijackers who spent time here. But less is known about Saad Al-Habeeb, Omar Al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, three recondite Saudi nationals who’ve been linked to the terrorists and to the Saudi government. All three of these three mysterious former San Diegans are now back in Saudi Arabia, including Al-Bayoumi, who was recently reinterviewed by the FBI after demands were made by members of Congress, including Charles Schumer (D-NY) and several others. Among these three, only Al-Bayoumi has been reinvestigated.

Saad Al-Habeeb

He’s been called everything from a student to a wealthy international businessman. But during his weeklong visit to San Diego, Saad Al-Habeeb left his mark by purchasing a building in El Cajon with a $450,000 cashier’s check from Chase Manhattan Bank. The building was renamed the Masjid Al-Madina Al-Munawara, to be used as a mosque and community center for San Diego’s Kurd Muslims.

Al-Habeeb’s gift was given on the condition that another Saudi, a sociable but enigmatic man named Omar Al-Bayoumi —who also happened to be friends with the hijackers and was widely considered to be a Saudi government agent—be set up as the building’s maintenance manager. He also was to be given a private office at the mosque, with a phone and a computer.

A half-million-dollar cashier’s check from a mysterious Saudi who had connections to the terrorists and to the Saudi government would seem a glaring red flag, but FBI agents apparently have left this clue unchecked. Santee businessman Richard Fritzer, who sold the El Cajon building to Al-Habeeb, says he has never been contacted by anyone from the FBI.

“The mosque purchase was described to me as a charitable gift, but I never knew where the money came from or much about Al-Habeeb’s background,” says Fritzer. “I’d obviously like to know if this guy was involved in any way with terrorism. The FBI has never called me.”

The manager of La Mesa’s Grossmont Escrow, which handled the El Cajon mosque transaction, says the FBI never contacted her, either. “No one’s ever asked to look at our records,” says the manager, who requested her name not be used. “It’s somewhat surprising, considering what this was about.”

Erick Ricci, a local civil engineer who also worked on the mosque project, says he, too, has never heard from the feds. Ricci says all the money for his engineering work on the project was paid to him on behalf of Al-Habeeb and Al-Bayoumi by a San Diego contractor named Aziz Fathy, who is from Egypt. Ricci used to work with Fathy, he says, but adds now that he wonders about the nature of the relationship between the Saudis and Fathy, who would not return phone calls from San Diego Magazine.

Al-Habeeb, who is mentioned only briefly in the congressional 9/11 report and is back in Saudi Arabia now, has said he made Al-Bayoumi manager of the El Cajon mosque because he was a “good man.” But the true nature of his relationship with Al-Bayoumi—and their association with the terrorists and the Saudi government—remains a mystery.
 
The poor sap who "wins" the presidency in 2008 is going to have his work cut out for him.
Wow. Deja vu. I said the same thing (replace 2008 with 2000) in the summer of 2000 when I saw the economy begin to tank.
 
Killing a bunch of people who do not and never have directly and personally caused harm to others is always unjust. I don't see any logic in "collective punishment" or in imposing death sentences on large numbers of people based on what some percentage of those people claim to support.
Did you miss the part about the Saudi people supporting terrorism with their money and their lives (the 9/11 bombers were Saudis)?
How many citizens of a nation have to fight against us before you consider that a nation is fighting against us? All of them?
In your analogy, you have accused me of something I did not propose
I'm not proposing attacking people for their ideology, I'm proposing attacking them for attacking us. You don't need to hold a gun to attack someone. I reject your idea that only a direct attack warrants a response. An indirect support of those who kill is the same as those who kill directly.

It was morally wrong, though we may excuse our elders for mistakes made in the fog of war.
Sorry, but I'll never accept that Gordon. While your comments about the strategic bombing survey are correct, I won't yield the moral high ground to our enemies,nor will I condemn our nation for what it did in WWII. Our strategic bombing may have been ineffective, but it was morally justified.
 
One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml


Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say
By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times

Saturday 02 August 2003

WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.

One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

Said another official: "It's really damning. What it says is that not only Saudi entities or nationals are implicated in 9/11, but the [Saudi] government" as well.

Despite such a harsh assessment of the alleged role of the Riyadh government, those U.S.officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say congressional investigators found no specific evidence proving that top Saudi officials ? notably members of the royal family ? conspired in any purposeful way to fund the Sept. 11 plot or other acts of terrorism.

And they concede that senior leaders of the CIA, FBI, Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the U.S. counter-terrorism effort have begun to raise strenuous behind-the-scenes objections to some of the assertions made in the classified section of the report.

Some U.S. officials disagree sharply over whether key members of the Saudi royal family knowingly took action to support terrorist activity or simply showed a pattern of what one official called "willful ignorance."

The nearly 900-page report, released last week, concluded that a series of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence failures preceded the Sept. 11 attacks and that there was evidence of financial support for the hijackers by an unnamed foreign government. U.S. officials have confirmed that that government is Saudi Arabia, but nearly all the details supporting that claim are contained in the lengthy redacted section of the document.

On Friday, several dozen U.S. lawmakers joined in calling on the Bush administration to declassify the section several days after the Saudi Arabian government also called for its release.

Saudi officials have vehemently denied any wrongdoing, saying any allegations of links to the Sept. 11 attacks contained in the report are unsupported by the facts and are politically motivated. They also denied allegations in the report that they allowed Saudi charities and other groups to raise money for Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations within their borders.

Adel al-Jubeir, a chief Saudi spokesman, said in an interview that there were thousands of members of the royal family, and that while an internal government investigation had uncovered "wrongdoing by some," such lapses were certainly not part of any government conspiracy.

The report itself cautions that its findings are inconclusive and require further investigation.

"On the one hand, it is possible that these kinds of connections could suggest, as indicated in a CIA memorandum, 'incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists,' " one passage from the unclassified section states. "On the other hand, it is also possible that further investigation of these allegations could reveal legitimate, and innocent, explanations for these associations."

Several U.S. officials confirmed that the classified report detailed what the FBI has long since concluded: that there were far more financial links than have previously been disclosed between Riyadh and American-based Saudis who associated with the hijackers, and to a larger network of terrorists worldwide.

Those officials refused to discuss the classified sections of the report but confirmed that they detailed additional allegations about Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, two Saudi men, and their suspicious activities in the United States.

Al Bayoumi was an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority who FBI agents said received "seemingly unlimited funding" from Saudi Arabia. Bassnan and his family received significant charitable support from Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Al Bayoumi and Bassnan are believed to be in Saudi Arabia.

Federal law enforcement officials said they viewed both men with deep suspicion, particularly Al Bayoumi, and that the ties between the purported San Diego-based student and Saudi officials were more extensive than has been disclosed to date. The classified section cites federal authorities as saying they believed both men, each of whom has been linked to Al Qaeda operatives, could have been Saudi intelligence agents who reported back to government officials in Riyadh and acted as conduits for financial aid for the hijackers and other Saudi militants. Sources say the classified section concludes that Al Bayoumi received at least $3,000 a month from Saudi officials.

U.S. officials also said their investigators have become suspicious over the years about the activities of Saudi Arabia's top law enforcement officer, Interior Minister Prince Nayef ibn Abdulaziz, who has been a vocal supporter of radical Islamist causes and has stated publicly that Jews were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

There is significant evidence, they say, that Prince Nayef is one of several top Saudi officials who, through individual efforts and in their roles as government overseers, funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to suspect charities and other front organizations that ultimately may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks and other terrorist strikes.

But some U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials criticized such assessments. "There is a lot of information in there that's inflammatory but not accurate, or inferential or open to interpretation," one official familiar with the classified section said. "Some of it is based on information that is partial, fragmentary and wrong. It is certainly not conclusive."

Other officials said they believed the evidence cited in the classified section was inconclusive about whether top Saudi officials intentionally helped finance terrorism or simply demonstrated what an official described in an interview as a "stunning" ability to look the other way as money flowed to terrorist activities around the globe.

"If you look at the links, you can't prosecute them for that. There's nothing direct," said one senior law enforcement official overseeing the U.S. effort to investigate Saudi terrorist financing. "If I were their defense attorney, I'd say that they had no direct knowledge. Whether they did have [such direct] knowledge, no one knows."

However one interprets the 27 pages, all who have read them agreed on one thing: If they are made public, they will prove extremely embarrassing not only to the Saudi government but also to the U.S. government, particularly to the FBI for missing so many clues pointing to Riyadh and for not aggressively investigating them, sources said.

"If this comes out, it will blow the top off the relations with [the Saudi] government because the American people will just be outraged," said one source familiar with the report.

"People don't know how much is in there and how specific it is," the source said. "The public hasn't gotten anywhere near the meat of it."

Many U.S. officials involved in the war on terrorism stressed that they were still actively investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, and that they had recently redoubled their efforts to trace terrorist financing in and out of Saudi Arabia, in part because of the cooperation of Saudi officials themselves. A delegation of senior authorities from the FBI, Treasury Department and National Security Council is set to travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Sunday. U.S. officials said the group will pursue new leads, even if they go to the top tiers of the royal family.

"We're going to track money in both directions, back to the operators and to the source of the donors and those who support terrorism, wherever that takes us," said one senior law enforcement official. "But completing the linkage between the Saudi [officials] and where the money ends up, that's what we're doing but it's going to be really difficult."

The officials will be bringing with them a list of suspected Saudi financiers of terrorism and will ask the Saudis to interrogate them and shut down certain businesses that they believe are being used as conduits.

They will also pressure Saudi leaders on why they haven't cracked down on many of the charities whose ties to terrorism ? and to top Saudi officials ? are detailed in the classified pages, according to several U.S. officials familiar with the trip.

Of particular concern, the U.S. officials said, were recent indications that the largest Saudi-based charity, the Al Haramain Charitable Foundation, continued to operate even though they had repeatedly pressed Saudi leaders to shut it down.

Saudi officials, who have extensive ties to Al Haramain, did order the closure of the massive charity's many overseas operations late last year as part of a series of promised reforms aimed at cracking down on terrorist financing. One senior U.S. official said the Saudis only did so after a U.S. delegation to Riyadh presented them with reams of "jaw-dropping" information about how Al Haramain's offices worldwide had been corrupted by Al Qaeda operatives.

Since that visit, the official said, Saudi leaders have reneged on virtually all of the promised reforms. Al-Jubeir, the Saudi spokesman, said such reforms were underway but that "they take time to implement fully."

Meanwhile, U.S. authorities said they would continue to investigate the other main charities cited in the congressional report as being conduits for terrorism, including the Muslim World League, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the International Islamic Relief Organization.

U.S. officials say top members of the Saudi royal family are involved in the oversight or operation of nearly all of those charities, and that they have refused to audit their books or question their activities despite repeated protests from Washington.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, said in an interview that ample evidence remained "that high-ranking Saudi officials and members of the Saudi royal family are involved in supporting Saudi organizations that have a dual purpose ? legitimate charitable work, but which also appear to be conduits to terrorist organizations."

"There has been no indication to me that they have seriously cracked down on or audited these charities that are under suspicion," said Collins, whose committee is investigating Saudi financing of terrorism. "I'm thinking of the phrase 'deliberate ignorance,' " Collins said of the Saudi leaders. "They don't want to know, they're not probing, they're not taking action that would uncover where the financing goes. I think they have knowledge at some level, that they intentionally are not seeking that information."
 
Sorry, but I'll never accept that Gordon. While your comments about the strategic bombing survey are correct, I won't yield the moral high ground to our enemies,nor will I condemn our nation for what it did in WWII. Our strategic bombing may have been ineffective, but it was morally justified.
Sure, because fire-bombing or nuking hundreds of thousands of toddlers is always morally justified if the United States does it, because we're always a just nation. Even when we do the same thing to folks in Texas.

Wrong is wrong. Deliberately killing toddlers and infants is wrong. You're welcome to justify it any way you want, but that's not the moral high ground. It may have been a better choice than the alternative, but that's a "lesser evil" choice -- not the moral choice.
 
I'm not proposing attacking people for their ideology, I'm proposing attacking them for attacking us. You don't need to hold a gun to attack someone. I reject your idea that only a direct attack warrants a response. An indirect support of those who kill is the same as those who kill directly.

That is exactly what I am responding to. Above, you also said:
My only caveat at this point would be that it's difficult to definitively prove your premise that a majority of the Saudi people support terrorism or war against us. Should that ever be made known as an objective fact, I would have no problem going to war against their citizenry.

Here's the problem: If they are not directly involved in terrorism (and clearly the majority are not carrying arms or making bombs), then what are the grounds for killing them? What do you mean by "indirect support"? If you mean believing or saying "terror attacks are Okay", then you support killing people for their beliefs. It does not matter how wrongheaded or evil those beliefs are, you are supporting killing for belief alone.

Now let's add to that the fact that it's a percentage of the society. If 70 percent of Saudi Arabia supports terrorism, that leaves 30 percent of about 26 million people who don't. That leaves just shy of 8 million people that you're willing to kill in order to punish the other 70 percent for supporting violence that less than 1 percent are actively involved in committing. "Instant sunshine" means murdering civillians, and it is no better than what the terrorists are doing.

Imagine someone in Iraq following this logic:

"Some Americans have abused Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. Most Americans support the army that did this, and do not think Abu Ghraib was a big deal. One American congressman has even talked about nuking our holiest city, Mecca. Therefore, most Americans support indirectly the abuse of Iraqis and all muslims."

Would that reasoning justify bombing new york? How's it any different from the process of reasoning that you're using to justify attacks on Saudi civillians?

Edited to add:

Well, someone here is much, much better at being concise than I, and has exactly the point I'd like to support:
Wrong is wrong. Deliberately killing toddlers and infants is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top