Fitzgerald: The Infidels of the House of Saud

To implement this most sensible idea, one must start with a concerted effort to expose and defeat the friends and hirelings of al-saud in Washington D.C. Given the saudi control of the MSM, that is no small undertaking.

Very good points, Hugh; and well-raised,too. But the first hurdle is our own leaders: They are living in cloud-cuckoo-land; and isn't there too much money change hands at that there top? First, they need to be jolted out of their reveries.

Reverse Jizya? Does this mean that we can sit on our dead asses for the next 1,390 years? That would mean those of us who are unapologetically and individually human would rule the world unti lthe year 3395 AD.

But who's gonna do the work?

Then there is the magic word: Wahhabi. Death to everything. These are the folks who are actually taking down Mecca and Medina stone by stone, because shrines are "idolatrous."

And Barbara Walters, with her bottomless ambition, had a disgusting interview with the new King of all this evil, a gangrenous member of the rotting House of Saud.

I snipped part of the interview here:
...Looks Evil in the Face

You won't believe the exchange between Walters and King Abdullah. Woman's got no shame and neither does ABC...it's right out of Orwell.

There is also some info on the current scum we accepted as the Saudi ambassador to this country, a man with very bloody hands.

And one bit of perhaps-good news: I put in the announcement of the Judiciary Committee's new hearings, beginning October 25th:

“Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?”

Friend or foe, period. Three guesses.

If I lived closer to DC, I'd go to the hearings.

"Reverse Jizya?"
-- from a poster above

who then goes on to worry that we will regard it as an entitlement program, and never do a day's work again. He needn't worry.

A payment imposed on the lesser, most vulnerable kingdoms and sheikhdoms of the Gulf, in return for our "protection" from Iran, or from whatever happens in Iraq, or from the biggest bully in Al-Jazirat, the Peninula, Saudi Arabia itself, should cost -- a lot. Ten, twenty, thirty billion -- oh, thirty billiion and then ten million finder's fee, or "origination" fee, or "he thought of it first" fee -- for me.

And the same can be imposed on Saudi Arabia, or rather on the family of Al-Saud. The payments can be disguised however they wish, using the same kind of techniques, but in reverse, that were used by Lockheed and other companies to obtain contracts, using the good offices of Khashoggi (he of the S. S. Nabila, with its Western crew and nubile retinue) to funnel money here and there and everywhere. And what would they get for giving the American govenrment $50 billion a year plus the ten million to be sent to me? Well, freedom from fear, freedom from hunger, freedom from want. You know -- we have ways.

Call it reimbursement for the expenses that Americans, and other Infidels (who should in Europe and Australia demand their own payments), incur in dealing with the effects of those Saudi-funded mosques, madrasas, and anti-Infidel propaganda. All those extra police all those new hires brought into the F.B.I. the C.I.A., M.I. 5 and M.I.6, the Deuxieme Bureau, or for that matteer all the police and security apparatuses throughout the Infidel world with their agencies and bureaux and otdeleniya, all the agents, all the wiretaps, all the security guards at churches and synagogues, at airports and railroad stations and subways, all the lawyers, all the judges, all the xeroxing, all the filing, all the translators, all those who have to figure out which translators to trust, all the monitoring of mosques, all the monitoring of Islamic schools, all the trailing of suspects -- oh, it is running into hundreds of billions of dollars. And we want it back. We want the Saudis and the other rich Arabs who have been funding the Jihad, who have helped so much to take the doctrine that was ever-present, and helped to supply the wherewithal, to pay us for what they have inflicted.

It only takes a little common sense, a little starting to clear one's throat and one's mind and beginning to speak openly about this cost, and about ways of demanding those responsible be made to pay up.

And don't forget my modest cut.

Once again, an excellent article, Hugh. And once again, you forget to mention a point that I raised in a previous comment on another similar post of yours: the Bush family are longtime close friends with the al-Saud's. Honest conservatives will mention this, since this so directly affects policy.

Check this link:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/PaoloBassi51017.htm

Dymphna posted:

"You won't believe the exchange between Walters and King Abdullah. Woman's got no shame and neither does ABC...it's right out of Orwell."

Do you really expect more from the people who also tried to legitimize the animal who orchestrated the rape and murder of schoolchildren in Beslan? There is no earthly shite, no puddle of puke, that is too reprehensible for these media whores to wallow in. Remind me, how much of ABC is controlled by al-saud?

"Honest conservatives...will mention this [the Bush family's connections to the Al-Saud], since this so directly affects policy."
-- from a posting above

1. I am not an "honest conservative" or "liberal" or anything else, so count me out of any duty to do anything, unless the duty is imposed by Noah Webster, Henry Fowler, or my mother.

2. Members of the Bush family, and friends of the Bush family, and also members of the Jimmy Carter family, and Bill Clinton, and every single Presidential library devoted to an ex-president who is still alive, have been recipients of Arab--not just Saudi-largesse.

Don't limit your fury at the $1 million which George Bush, Sr. pocketed from a speech in Kuwait, as his personal reward for the rescue of Kuwait -- I don't recall that he donated the money to any fund for American veterans of that war, do you? Don't forget James Baker, the man whom the Saudis have always liked (and how much did they contribute to the modestly-titled James Baker Center at Rice, or how much did other Arabs chip in?) and would have liked him even if he had not, since his Princeton undergraduate days (subject of senior thesis: why it was wrong to recognize the state of Israel). Don't forget that old Kennedy family apparatchik, Fred Dutton, who for years was the main man for Prince Bandar. And don't forget the establishment, when Bill Clinton was President, of an Islamic studies center at -- the University of Arkansas, and then those very generous Saudi donations to the William Clinton Presidential Library. And let's not even begin to talk about the Arab money that is funneled through expensive lecture honoraria at, for example, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (what's it called -- the Faris Lecturer?) where for an hour's work Bill Clinton and a number of others get to pocket a cool, not million, but a hundred thousand.

There are all those ex-ambassadors to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Some appointed by Republicans, some appointed by Democrats.

There is plenty of blame to be spread around, plenty of guilt that should be felt but is not by all those people who, in the Western world, have been recycling Arab petrodollars for themselves and their friends, and in return making the world less safe for the countries they claim to be loyal to, and to their less-connected, less-influential fellow citizens.

So I won't single out the Bush family. Why should I?

The Carter-Bush-Baker-Bush axis has been nothing short of disastrous.

It's one thing to sling the bull in term papers and election campaigns, but its another to take the national helm and indulge this fantasy about Islam having equivalence and Moslems being workable.

What a pompous, and dangerous, ass Jim Baker is.

The Carter-Bush-Baker-Bush axis has been nothing short of disastrous.

It's one thing to sling the bull in term papers and election campaigns, but its another to take the national helm and indulge this fantasy about Islam having equivalence and Moslems being workable.

What a pompous, and dangerous, ass Jim Baker is.

HUGH: "Who cares if the Saudi rulers have to spend another ten or twenty or thirty billion dollars on anti-Al Qaeda measures?"

Ah, but what if they choose to spend half that buying Al Qaeda off as they did after the Khobar Towers bombing in Dahrain.

From oil-pricing and production policies to subsidizing terrorism, what the Saudis decide to do or not do has a pronounced effect on the infidel West. This is a relationship that must be handled adroitly. Bluster and venting may make us feel better, but reality is, the House of Saud literally have us over a barrel.

I'm waiting for the Democrat or Republican to come along in '08 and promise to pursue that 'Manhatten project' we've all been talking about that will break our dependence on fossile fuels. Maybe then, exhortations to tell the Saudis to piss off will have some viability.

Bite your tongue Cornelius.

The nature of power and money is that

money always follows power, as any Mafia Don dcan explain to you, not vice versa.

Our politicians take the money because they feel they can get away with it.

It does corrupt.

When one gets around to kicking the corruptor, it is likely the corruptee will be shamed as well and even more.

But even now those bastards Prince Turki papers Washington and Prince Alwaleed buys the media.

I urge all here to read the link which Faqi provided above:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/
PaoloBassi51017.htm

You're referring to the corruption of politics Gene, I'm referring to economics. The recent oil price increases have started an inflationary cycle in the USA and the natural remedy of the Fed - a sharp rise in interest rates - threatens to send our economy into recession...just in time for the '06 elections.

The Saudis alone have the production capacity to transform the price of oil...they can make up for production cut-backs in any other oil exporting country, but no country can come close to making up for Saudi production cuts.

Unless you're prepared to advocate invading the Saudi oil fields, we better show a little circumspection in how we treat them. They have the means to ruin Western economies. They could develop a strategic relationship with the Chinese that could transform the geo-political balance in the world. There is much to consider here.

Listen, I'm all for smashing the sacred cows of Islam in our political discourse. But the conduct of statecraft is another thing entirely.

Spare the platitudes about statecraft, C.

This voice has long advocated the removal of the Saudis from control and ownership of the gas station.

Economics follows power - another lesson both of history and the Mafia Dons.

Extricate yourself from the box .

So I won't single out the Bush family. Why should I?

Um, maybe because Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, etc. are no longer in power? Maybe THAT might be a good idea? And how about this little fact: the Saudi hijackers of 9-11 attacked us AFTER Carter et al. left office. Oh, and this: neither Carter, nor Kennedy, nor Clinton removed the only threat to Saudi Arabia: Saddam Hussein.

Hey, it only cost 10,000-odd ordinary US troops their lives, so it was well worth it, right? (Yes, I said 10,000...read up on Gulf War Syndrome "mystery illness for more.

And now we throw another 2,000 bodies at the jihadis to save the Kuwaitis and the Saudis and the Iranians from Saddam. And the "patriotic" Americans say the troops died for US? And that "freedom isn't free"? Well it certainly is for those that were threatened by Saddam Hussein.

Yes, it is too bad that the MSM are owned by the Saudis or their sycophants. But I did see one "major media figure" last year tell the truth about Saudi Arabia: he said on a "debate" on CNN or FOX or one of the MSM pro-oil, pro-Saudi, pro-Islam cable news networks that Saudi Arabia was doling out rewards to "martyrs" killed on terrorism missions in Israel; and he also made a movie (with no help from the MSM and no major advertising BTW) that detailed the long history of the Bush family and Saud family. And that the Saudis have 80 BILLION dollars in US banks... and that he Saudis are guarded by the Secret Service (thank you very much, Mr. and Mrs. American Infidel Taxpayer.)

I won't mention this man's name, because I know how it gives some of you more sensitive JW/DW fans digestion problems... But his name rhymes with "Bichael Boore."

And all that stuf he said about Saudi in his movie? The Saudis havne't sued him for it... but if they do, look for James Baker to lead the way.

So Hugh, do you care to tell us the reason why you don't single out the Bush family now? And please, don't tell me I have the wrong address; not in English, nor French, nor whatever.

You do seem to at least be on the right path with your tepid criticisms of Saudi Arabia, but the attempt to spread the blame around to every other president is as silly as King Tolerance's trying to equivocate Christianity with Islam.

Or do you have any pictures of Clinton, Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, or Kennedy strolling hand-in-hand with the King of Saudi Arabia?

The spin is spun, but the fact remains: the Bush family is WAAAY too cozy with the Saudi tyrants. I don't know what you get out of trying to pooh-pooh it or make it an example of "every President does it", but I hope it's worth it.

Oops...not 80 billion in US banks, 800 billion.

"...No more mosques built or maintained by Saudi money, directly or indirectly. No more support for academic "centers..."

Or perhaps we could impose an "imported doctrine parity rule" on the pugnacious Salafists. Yup, skin for skin. For every Mosque on our soil we get to build an evangelical church there, complete with Saudi immunity from persecution and unfettered public access to Bibles for all. Turn the Southern Baptists loose.

RE: Oh, and this: neither Carter, nor Kennedy, nor Clinton removed the only threat to Saudi Arabia: Saddam Hussein.

Here is the real picture as it has nothing to do with Bush. Saddam had stated it often that it was
his goal to revive the Babylonian Empire and be the de facto ruler of the Middle East and he was
mad enough to try it.

If Saddam controlled the Saudia Arabian oil fields,he could have thrown the WHOLE world into a depression. Money meant nothing to him as he already had millions.

"attempt to spread the blame around to every other president..."
-- from a posting above

This is nonsense. For decades the Saudi lobby, which began with the propaganda spewed out by ARAMCO, has been preventing the American government from seeing Saudi Arabia plain. All sorts of people have benefited from the Saudi money. Fred Dutton, I repeat, was a Kennedy apparatchik. John C. West of South Carolina, an ambassador to Saudi Arabia who helped his friend Crawford Cook get a job working for the Saudis, was a Democrat. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings -- not to be confused with the Ernest "Fritz" Hollings who was one of the pro-Nazi sympathizers mentioned in John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover," was another Democratic friend to the Saudis.

As far as I know, not all presidents were necessarily taken in and not all politicians have been recipients of Saudi money, directly or indirectly.

But it would be silly to limit one's fury to the Bush family. George Bush Sr., as noted above, seems to have done best for himself with that Kuwaiti honorarium (a reward that he should have turned over to the Veterans Administration). The size, the smoothness, of the Saudi lobby may be affected by the replacement of Prince Bandar, with his Port-and-cigars shtick: "Yes, we are corrupt. We admit it. But our corruption is nothing compared to the size of our economy. It is well within acceptable limits. And aren't we all, we men of the world, all corrupt in our way? [answer: yes] So what if out of a trillion dollars ten or twenty or fifty billion goes astray. So what?" This has gone on for decades, but now Prince Bandar is no longer there to offer his usual and obvious blague (and as he is careful in his speech, I always enjoy catching his occasional mispronounciations, so I miss him). Now the grave and gravel-voiced Prince Turki, sans dishdasha and sans dagger, appears on the scene to see justice done. To poor misunderstood and unfairly maligned Saudi Arabia.

If, by the way, you consider my criticisms of Saudi Arabia "tepid" you are, of course, a caso clinico. And the not-at-the-address business was Russian, in which languge it is enough to say "not to that address" to mean "the wrong address" or you are barking up -- woof, woof -- the wrong tree. Just the way the word "pogoda" or "weather" can sometimes signify "bad weather" --the adjective is implied.

Read "America's Secret War" by Dr George Friedman.

Getting tired of repeating myself, but people aren't seeing the big picture. We are in Iraq because of Saudia Arabia.

Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves and we are now establishing bases outside of Saudia Arabia.

That is why Saudia Arabia is raising the price of oil to get the Republicans out of office in '06 as they see the direct threat from the current Administration which has the guts to deal with Saudia Arabia in the only way that they will understand.

If the American soldiers are still in Iraq in 2006, there is no chance that the Republicans will avoid large-scale defeat. If American soldiers remain in Iraq until 2008, any Democrat who promises to remove them will win -- and there is the possibility that by that time the American people will have lost the will even to think of ways to divide or demoralize Islam.

The Administration, or those in it who have their f-a-c-u-l-t-i-e-s intact, should consider the long-term effect on morale, and on willingness to counter Islam, by further expenditure [I call it squandering] of men, money, and materiel in Iraq. Even if one were to grant [I don't] that some good might come from a stable Iraqi nation-state with someting like a democracy, the cost to the larger effort, that must now be directed mainly to reversing the islamization of Europe and to dealing with the Iranian nuclear project, would be too great. Cost/benefit -- $350 billon/none unless Sunnis and Shi'a are permitted to do what comes naturally to one another, and unless the Kurds form a state independent of either

Well Gene, advocating the siezure of Saudi oil fields is a pretty drastic stuff. The repercussions would be felt far and wide.

It's easy to think outside the box when your ruminations have no effect on policy. Unlike so many here, I try to empathize with the real-world constraints afflicting US policymakers.

Something tells me if you were in the Whitehouse, you'd disregard your own advice.

HUGH: "Even if one were to grant [I don't] that some good might come from a stable Iraqi nation-state with someting like a democracy, the cost to the larger effort, that must now be directed mainly to reversing the islamization of Europe and to dealing with the Iranian nuclear project, would be too great. Cost/benefit -- $350 billon/none unless Sunnis and Shi'a are permitted to do what comes naturally to one another, and unless the Kurds form a state independent of either"

I could be wrong, but I think the biggest sacrifices in US blood and treasure have already been made as the Iraqi army expands, improves and grows some hair on its balls. Why cut and run when the prospects of success are very real?

I also think that America can do little or nothing about Europe's Islamization problem. The Europeans will decide their own fate, irrespective of American wishes...(Iran's nuclear program is a different story and as you rightly point out, it needs urgent attention).

Even Mr Spencer appears to view the Iraqi experiment in Democracy with utter disdain. It's very disappointing. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think there is a very real possibility of it taking hold...and that this may become a pivital event shaping the future of the Middle East.

"I think there is a very real possibility of it taking hold...and that this may become a pivital event shaping the future of the Middle East.
-- from the posting above

Shaping that "future" how? In what way that will be of assistance in reversing the islamization of Europe? In what way in dealing with the Iranian attempts to build bombs? In what way will "democracy" (i.e. the Sunni minority rule replaced by Shi'a majority rule) in Iraq, should the pseudo-country hold together, help create the conditions in which Muslims themselves, or a sufficient number of the most sensible, will begin to connect the dots, and see that the political, economic, social, intellectual and moral failures of Islamic states and peoples directly arise from Islam itself, its teachings, its attitudes, its atmospherics.

How can this "democracy" in Iraq do more to achieve any of that, than could be achieved by exploiting the natural fissures within Islam (sectarian and ethnic) that Iraq so beautifully presents to us, and that we would be foolish indeed, as we have been, not merely refusing to take advantage of this, but unselfishly (and idiotically) seekiing to prevent such fissures from widening or leading to greater hostility or even open warfare.

How stupid can one be?

"How stupid can one be?"

I appreciate your restraint.

Actually, the success of Democracy can shape the future of the Middle East in obvious ways. Mostly by introducing the rule of law and leaving behind the gun as the principle expediant in the conduct of affairs.

I agree with you that a degree of cultural sophistication is necessary for the institutions of Democracy to function optimally. I don't expect a Democracy without warts. But Democracy has taken root in even culturally immature societies. Iraqi Kurdistan has been a quasi-Democracy for almost a decade now...with a functioning parliament, etc. These people are Muslims.

It's an unpopular position on these pages I know. But unlike yourself Hugh, I think the Muslim world is still up for grabs. You want to disengage. I don't think that is realistic in the global age. I believe in engagemant, in building alliances, in the carrot and stick.

I think that just like Dgene, if you were in a position of power, you would show much greater flexibility towards the Muslim world than you advocate on these pages.

In refrence to George Friedman's book, The Secret War(AKA spies, intelligence, the guessing game) one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq is Saudi Arabia, to send a message down to Arabia that the United states was trying to send a message to the Saudis that we werent screwing around in our so called war against terrorism and the states that sponser it.
Allright Friedman also felt Iraq was a quagmires that he felt that Bush was wrong for going there. And I hear that one of the prevailing what ifs, is the United States going to invade the oil fields?
As a vetern of the 1988 flagging of Kuwatii tankers, Desert Storm and Somilia, Im going to be a little frank about the reality in asking an american soldier sailor, marine who have spent enough time overseas for all of us the following question. In service to the people and government of the United States, are you willing to sacrifice more years of service to the invasion of Saudi Arabian oil fields that everyone knows would spark WW3. And for whom are you going to make this sacrifce for?
Im not going to lie I am scared and I guarentee all of you are scared as well as
things are going possibly, beyond the means and capabilites of each one of us and ouselves we call America. Many call Al QAeda a phantom menace the Bush Administration has made up and others such as Paul Williams have pointed a darker pictue of the Godfather of Terror OBL or Bin Laden and the BOys of Terror.
Were heading towards more darker days ahead, no Im not submitting to defeat, but am trying to be real here from my angle. Saudi Oil fields and occupation solves nothing for it creates more envy and hate just as we know with storms brewing in South America and Mexico. Were over extendind our hand in a few areas and those who say were not doing enough, throw them in uniform and let them do the work.
Our enemies are more than just militant Islam,
our enemies are here as well, look at all the gangs and drug culture that thrives in America even worse than the Al Qaeda Cancer abroad. Were teaching the Iraqis Democracy? Look at all the BS special interests and lobbying in this war for and against this war, Their fuel for the hatred of the west is our own creation. The questiont is to every persons who has died for this, is why?
This is the failure of the administration, and a failure that will cost them, down the line,
National Security is one thing dealing with the Devil is another.

Unfortunately, the stability of the Middle East is essential for the whole world because of oil.
Japan for example imports 100% of its oil needs.

The first Gulf War exposed some glaring weaknesses as it took America over 3 months to mobilize a counteroffenseive. Why Saddam didn't move quicker is unknown. He could have easily gone into Saudia Arabia and we could not have stopped him.

Iraq has become a strategic necesssity for the security of the WHOLE WORLD not just America.

That doesn't mean I like any of this > life stinks!

"I think the Muslim world is still up for grabs. You [Hugh] want to disengage."
-- from a posting above

This travesty of many articles and postings is not promoted to the status of truth by mere repetition. Leaving Iraq is not "disengagement" if the men, money, materiel now being misallocated are allocated to better uses. $350 billion spent on energy programs may seem to you to be "disengagement" but it is the most important kind of "engagement" with unfunding the Jihad, and pushing Saudi Arabia back into the obscurity that it so richly deserves. Rockets and planes, not ground troops, to deal with Iranian plans does not constitute "disengagement." Aid to the Kurds, should they need it, and diplomatic maneuvering to force resigned Turkish acceptance (at a time when Turkey needs the United States, for diplomatic support, military aid, economic favors) of an independent Kurdistan, does not constitute "disengagement." Plans to seize parts of the Sudan, a member of the Arab League, does not constitute "disengagement." And so on -- I could go on.

Stop misrepresenting me. I've had it. Either be accurate, or do not comment.

You keep avoiding one point:

What happens if, in the aftermath of withdrawal, Iraq becomes of base of operations for planning and executing global terrorist operations? It is a very likely outcome. At least now, the Sunni extremists are pre-occupied with survival.

Should we allow them to export their terrorism unfettered? Should we rely on your coveted airpower, which historically has proven you cannot displace an insurgent enemy without boots on the ground?

You want to go fight jihad in Sudan? The North and South have already put an end to the war there. The South is now self-governed and within a decade will vote on full independence. What kind of logic is it to run away from jihad in Iraq and try to find it in Sudan where it no longer exists.

Oh perhaps Darfur is your target? But the people of darfur are Muslims. Isn't it likely they'll welcome us as liberators...only to later turn against us as occupiers?

You're all over the map Hugh. We have a full-blown jihad were fighting right now in Iraq and you don't want to recognize it as such...you want to go try and unearth it somewhere else.

"The South [of the Sudan] is now self-governed and within a decade will vote on full independence."
-- from a posting above

You must be kidding.

Facts don't lie Hugh. The Christian diaspora from Southern Sudan are starting to retutn home. Outside investment is begining to trickle in. There is no active combat going on.

Certainly the circumstances of John Garang's death were suspicious. But his successor has adhered to both the letter and spirit of the peace agreement.

It's impossible to say what will happen in 7 or 10 years rime. Maybe Khartoum signed on to bide time in anticipation of strengthening itself via the proceeds of Darfur oil revenues and plans to resume jihad at a later date.

All I know is that right now there is no jihad taking place in Southern Sudan, but you appear hell-bent on creating one.

Of course they are biding their time. Of course they have managed to stave off any serious interference as they finish off Darfur, and at no time during the 2 1/2 years were they in any danger of being stopped.

"Jihad" does not come and go. The people in Khartoum, or the next regime, do not cease to believe in "Jihad." At times they may find it more intelligent not to conduct open warfare, but to use other means -- diplomacy (smooth words), propaganda, Da'wa (in the south), or the wealth weapon (which for now depends on getting that oil production in the south going, and the revenues flowing, as much as possible, to Khartoum, whatever promises about the sharing of that wealth may have been made). The record is long, and the record is entirely on one side. After all that has been learned, after all that has been on display here at Jihadwatch, how could anyone believe that the "Jihad" is over in the Sudan, or anyhere? It is never over. It is in posse if not in esse. It is a question of what wherewithal Muslims possess, and how strong the enemy is, and what the ultimate gain can be, and what the potential loss. That's it.

An American intervention in the Sudan would be nothing like that in Iraq. It would not be to build "democracy." It would not require more than a few thousand troops and some planes to scare the enemy. It would be like the invasion of Grenada, or Panama -- not even. And the repercussions in black Africa, of black Africans being rescued from Arab Muslim oppressors, would be significant. The ripple-effects not of an ordinary wave, but of a decuman. You think it would "cause trouble." Are you still kidding? That is what all appeasers say -- don't do this, don't do that, you might anger the Muslims. They don't need to be "angered." They are permanently angered, resentful, envious, and full of inculcated hostility. The more Infidels are inhibited, the more they try to avoid "angering" Muslims, the worse things become. There is no counterexample to this.

What if the Southern Sudanese do not want our intervention? What if they are perfectly content to pursue the peace agreement they've negotiated (and we brokered)...as appears to be the case?

You're hell-bent on intervening in a conflict that currently does not even exist...and just as hell-bent on walking away from a conflict that DOES.

And "causing trouble" among Muslims is not the problem Hugh. Alienating real and potential friends among Muslims and non-Muslims in Africa and throughout the world is.

Maintaining the sanctity of post-colonial borders has been a cornerstone of trans-African policy since the birth of the OAU. What will be the reaction of the 'African Union' to a unilateral American decision to shatter this policy?

If or when Khartoum resumes its jihad against the people of southern Sudan, we can revisit the issue. Until then, the point is moot.

JOIN THE DIVEST SUDAN DRIVE
OF THE SUDAN CAMPAIGN*

Over $91.2 billion of our American dollars are being invested by over 100 of America’s most prominent public pension funds in large, publicly-traded companies that are propping up Khartoum’s murderous regime that has killed more than 35,000 black Muslim Sudanese this year alone and who will be responsible for the deaths of 350,000 more of these innocent men, women and children if we, the people, do not act. Pick up the list of those pension funds In your state that are doing it

http://www.sudancampaign.com/

DIVEST SUDAN DRIVE PICKS UP SPEED

WASHINGTON — Monday, Nov. 15, 2004 — “Every one of us has the power to say no to the US pension funds that are investing our money in businesses, which in turn are propping up the genocidal Khartoum government in Sudan,” said The Honorable Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, Chairman

(Washington, DC) – Representative Barbara Lee hailed legislation aimed at divesting the California State Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) from companies doing business in Sudan.

“No Californian should have to worry that their retirement is being financed by genocide,” said Rep. Lee. “CalPERS needs to act to remove the stain of this blood from our state pensions.”

Mounting Protests against Sudanese Genocide

MAJOR SUCCESS FOR THE COALTION TO STOP SUDAN’S GENOCIDE IN DARFUR

HOUSE AND SENATE PASS RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE U.S. TO DECLARE MASSACRE IN SUDAN

A GENOCIDE

SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL SAYS THE SUDANESE GOVERNMENT IS “SUPPORTING AND SUSTAINING” THE MILITIA

IT IS NOW TIME TO STOP THE SUDANESE GOVERNMENT