In Human Events today, I answer the question, just in case anyone still doesn't know. (News links in the original.)
Saudi officials announced Monday that they had arrested 56 members of Al-Qaeda, who were at an “advanced stage” of planning jihad terror attacks within the Kingdom.This would seem to support President Bush’s statement from last October, when in order to free up aid from the Saudis he declared: “I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort.” As jarring as it may be to contemplate the notion that the United States is providing aid to the oil-rich House of Saud, these arrests indicate that at least it seems to be paying off.
Yet nagging questions remain. Last September, Stuart Levey, the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, noted that the Saudis had not prosecuted even a single individual who has been identified by the U.S. or the U.N. as a bankroller of jihad terror. “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country,” Levey said, “it would be Saudi Arabia.”What’s more, an undercover reconnaissance survey of mosques and Islamic schools all over the United States has found that as many as seventy-five percent of mosques and Islamic schools in this country preach jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, according to a World Net Daily report, “confirmed that ‘the vast majority’ are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.”
The Saudis fund a significant number of the mosques in this country. Warith Deen Muhammad, a prominent American Muslim leader and the son of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, explained what’s wrong with the Saudi influence in American mosques: “In Saudi Arabia it’s the Wahhabi school of thought...and they say, ‘We’re gonna give you our money, then we want you to...prefer our school of thought.” That’s in there whether they say it or not. So there is a problem receiving gifts that seem to have no attachment, no strings attached.”
But why would the Saudis be encouraging jihadist sensibilities among Muslims in the United States while arresting Al-Qaeda operatives inside the Kingdom? Abu Zubaydah, a captured Al-Qaeda operative, claimed that the House of Saud had made a deal with Al-Qaeda: financing for the jihad around the world, in exchange for immunity from jihadi attacks within Saudi Arabia itself.
The Saudis have denied this, and in any case the deal seems to be off. There have been several jihad attacks inside Saudi Arabia in recent years, but Stuart Levey is not out in left field in thinking that the Saudis continue to support terror in an enthusiastic -- and effective -- manner. Secret files revealed in Britain several weeks ago show Saudi officials threatening British investigators with another jihad attack on the scale of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London if they didn’t drop inquiries into corruption in their arms deals. Who is supposed to have made these threats? Prince Bandar, head of Saudi Arabia’s national security council and son of its crown prince.
In light of all this, it is likely that the 56 freshly-arrested members of Al-Qaeda are guilty in the eyes of the House of Saud not of waging jihad warfare as such, but simply of waging jihad warfare in the wrong place: inside the Kingdom. And given the Kingdom’s notoriously spotty human rights record, it is also likely that these suspects will not be offered the amenities of the Guantanamo camp about which Saudi authorities have issued complaints. And their arrests should not prevent American officials from asking tough questions about where the Saudis really stand, and what we can realistically expect from their alliance with the United States. When the Saudis refused to cut America a break on oil prices during President Bush’s trip to Riyadh in January, it should have been a wake-up call for anyone who still considered the Saudis a reliable ally in the war on terror. And this latest arrest of Al-Qaeda operatives shouldn’t lead anyone to go back to sleep, either.
But the Saudis also arrest rape victims, suspected witches, and women who drink coffee with men..............so are these really members of Al Qaeda or a group of guys who stood to close to women "who are not related to them"?
The principals of taqiyya and kittman have never been rescinded or denounced in the history of Islam.
"War is deceit" straight from the horse's mouth. Oops, I meant the Prophet's mouth.
"... it is likely that the 56 freshly-arrested members of Al-Qaeda are guilty in the eyes of the House of Saud not of waging jihad warfare as such, but simply of waging jihad warfare in the wrong place: inside the Kingdom."
And thus violating the deal that was struck between the House of Saud and the Saudi ulema during the Grand Mosque takeover in 1979. As Yaroslav Trofimov reported in "The Siege of Mecca":
"As King Khalid requested, they [the clerics of the ulema] would sign a fatwa, reaffirming the regime's Islamic legitmacy. But from now on, the Saudi rulers would have to live up to their Islamic obligations. There would be no more women on TV, no more licentioous movies, no more alcohol. The social liberalization that had begun under King Faisal should be halted and, where possible, rolled back. And billions of Saudi petro dollars should be put to good use, spreading the rigid Wahhabi Islam around the planet. Wasn't it Saudi Arabia's duty to dispel the clouds of disbelief, instilling genuine faith among Muslims worldwide and spreading God's word among infidels? As some Saudi princes described it later, the ulema essentially asked al Saud to adopt Juhayman's agenda in exchange for their help in getting rid of Juhayman [the takeover leader] himself."
Emphasis mine. This is why there is a fine big mosque right in the middle of downtown in the city where I live, at which one of the notorious "Flying Imams" preaches.
The question of the century is:
Since Islam is obviously the enemy, what are we waiting for?
Is it really that difficult to figure out about Saudi duplicity? Our government needs to put its first priority on protecting the Homeland, and it should start by monitoring and then shuttering the Saudi-funded houses-of-jihad.
Instead, I see Condi is hopping around the Mideast pursuing her Palestine peace fantasy. The Secretary of Duh.
"As jarring as it may be to contemplate the notion that the United States is providing aid to the oil-rich House of Saud, these arrests indicate that at least it seems to be paying off."
Are you freakin' kidding me? We are providing them with aid...
What charity supoorts that "Save the Rich"? The price of Oil is at an all time high and the House of Saud is at their all time wealthiest... and we are sending them more money then our oil dollars?
Gimme a break.
To answer the question without any thrills
They are not on our side, never have been, never will be.
On a related note about Saudi efforts and money being spent in this country. I happened upon a Koran at my local library. I was fairly new and had a published data of 2001 or 2002. Handsome leather looking with gold trim. I did a catalog search and found the library had two or three more of the same new books. This library is city owned and run, not part of a bigger county system. I did go on line to the county system and found that in a library system with 10 branches there were over 20 books. This was a year ago so I don't remember the exact numbers. It is not to hard to extrapolate how many of these books are in this country and what amount of money is being spent. This is just one small part of it IMO. I am not saying we should burn these books just giving a heads up to the depth of what is going on.
They are spending and influencing in numerous ways all over the world. I find it shocking in one sense that we are giving any kind of money to this government. The public has been given the bill of goods that this money is foreign aid. The operative word is aid. It is not aid, it is influence money, just like what Saudi is doing. I wish we would cut off the influence in both directions. Another way we could influence other countries is to tell them if they receive money and material from countries promoting the spread of Islam then they will suffer the loss of any aid we might consider giving. Two can play this game.
The next big thorn is getting off of the oil nipple. This is aid without the strings. First gas needs to equal and exceed what most of the world is paying. Maybe $5-$6 a gallon. Hurts buy that is the medicine the doctor has ordered. I hate the idea of government increasing taxes but because of the threat this need to be done for the duration of the war.
Proverbs 15:10
Harsh discipline is for him who forsakes the way,
And he who hates correction will die.
الأمثال 15:10
قاسيه الانضباط هو الذي يقاوم له الطريق ،
وقال انه يكره تصويب الذين سيموتون.
The question of the century is:
Since Islam is obviously the enemy, what are we waiting for?
Shy Guy
War on Islam is almost the same as “War on Terror”.
Before 22.06.41 the Soviet media was talking only about Fascism and Fascists.
As soon as Hitler attacked Soviet Union, all the media switched from Fascists to Germans. It was a very clever move. An average person doesn’t know or understand fine points. He or she needs a stereotype to hate. That is why I have always been against such terms as Islamo-Facsism, Islamic extremists and so on. Keep it simple: MOSLEMS. It is easy to stereotype them: beards, clothes, ethnicity, mosques.
Danish cartoons did more in fighting Moslems, then everything we have done together by stereotyping and mocking Mohammad.
Islam is NOT the enemy. Islam is an ideology used by our enemies.
The enemies are Moslems.
it is likely that the 56 freshly-arrested members of Al-Qaeda are guilty in the eyes of the House of Saud not of waging jihad warfare as such, but simply of waging jihad warfare in the wrong place: inside the Kingdom.
The best definition of the Muslim mindset.
They don't oppose al qaeda. They're just upset that al qaeda is attacking THEM. They don't oppose violence in the name of Islam. They oppose violence in the name of Islam that has THEM as its targets.
The House of Saud is no different from any criminal gang. Violence that furthers its aims is good. Violence that threatens its existence is bad.
Very shortly after 9/11 happened, while I was still studying in the US, I heard a very interesting analysis-- unfortunately from a source I cannot recall. I do not know if it's true, but is the best explanation I have yet heard to date.
That analysis suggested the following explanation of what al-Qaeda was trying to do. First, the bin-Laden family is the second most powerful family in Saudi Arabia. Osama is not at all the "black sheep" of the family some pretend because he regularly appears at family functions. The bin-Laden have long rivalled the ibn-Sauds [the royal family, of whom they are cousins] for the leadership of Saudi Arabia and thereby of the Muslim world via control of Mecca and Medina.
Now, the whole Muslim world would be up in arms against the bin-Ladens if they started a civil war within Saudi Arabia itself and so they fight a proxy civil war in which they try to discredit the ibn-Sauds while portraying themselves as the "ideal Muslims". Thus, al-Qaeda is seeking to overthrow the present Saudi gov't, according to this analysis, and take over the leadership themselves while at the same time making themselves leaders of the Muslim world.
So, will the Saudis fight al-Qaeda? Some will and some won't, but not for the reasons that they object to terror or anything of the kind. Since terror is "jihad", to come out against it completely would play into bin-Laden's hands. On the other hand, to not seem to do so would alienate the non-Muslim West.
This is a real war with real tangible objectives and the only ones seeming to have a unified consistent strategy for fighting it is our enemy.
Posted by: pong
Islam is NOT the enemy. Islam is an ideology used by our enemies.
The enemies are Moslems.
Perfect,even to the last word. "MOSLEM"
According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different.
A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.
For others, this spelling differentiation is merely a linguistic matter, with the two spellings a result of variation in transliteration methods.
Both Moslem and Muslim are used as nouns. But some writers use Moslem when the word is employed as an adjective.
Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups. But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased.
Now off topic
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/10/hard-look-at-racism.html
The Saudis do not take kindly if the truth is told about them.
And what is that truth? Well, first of all they are raping us via the price of oil, and keeping production at a level that will increase what we pay at the pump.
On top of that we are providing them with aid? That's like after being raped and going to bed willingly and repeatedly with your rapist between rapes.
Hey, but it's okay. Our George-Double-U-in-chief declared, “I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort.”
We all know what that Certification is worth.
As to the question, "The Saudis: Which Side Are They On?" We all know the answer to that one. The Saudis are on Allah's side, and what Allah wants, Allah gets. What does Allah want? That's an easy one: Allah wants the whole world to submit to Islam. And Allah appears to be having great successes. Can't you see him smiling at the appropriate phase of the month?
Stuart Levey knows that the Saudis are bankrolling the worldwide jihad. But knowing
that doesn't mean anything will and can be done about that. You see Stuart Levey is only the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which means he is part of the Administration--he works for the Secretary of the Treasury and the boss of all of them is that same George-Double-U-in-chief who "certified" that the Saudis are Kosher--or more appropriately, halal.
Now it's not only that the Saudis have control of our economy via oil prices, they also are deeply embedded via investments (with money gained from the gauging us at the pump) in our corporations.
These include our media. Now, as far as Moslems are concerned, these channels for our news and opinions can be compared to ladies of easy virtue who are eager to go with a favorite customer--and the Moslem Arabs are favorities as far as the left-leaning mainstream media are concerned.
But the Saudis, who we must remember are always on the side of Allah and not on that of the United States, are much more pervasive here in the United States than having their paws in our corporations. (One would hope that they are using only the right paw in that endeavor.) They also have heavily endowed our universities with chairs and Islamic centers, are exerting control over what goes into our school textebooks and curricula, and are spreading d'awa (proselytizing propaganda) into all levels of our society with the desired results of making Islamic converts amongst our population. As Islam is an ideology foreign to our system of government and at odds with our Constitution, that makes the Saudis not on our side.
More than all the hate literature emanating from the Saudi-funded mosques, the damage to us is the attack on our freedom of speech by these self-same "certified" Saudis. This is an insidious process via coercion and extortion, putting pressure on organs in which the Saudis (and we must not forget their fellow travellers in the UAE) hold an interest to censor free speeech--unfavorable to Islam--in the private (non-governmental--so far) bodies that they can control.
Do not underestimate the enormity of what that can do in keeping our population informed of Islamic intentions in our country.
What can we do about this? Precious little, at this time, I am afraid. The Islamic forces--financed by the Saudis and greased by Saudi influence have infiltrated our Department of Defense, Administration, State Department and its Ambassadorial and Consular corps, as well as the FBI and what is invisible to us, our Intelligence agencies.
As to the Saudis claim that "Saudi officials announced . . . that they had arrested 56 members of Al-Qaeda, who were at an 'advanced stage' of planning jihad terror attacks within the Kingdom," I would not put too much weight on that as far as the Saudis being on our side in our war with the forces of jihad. These could well be not high-level al qaeda operatives that posed a danger to U.S. territory and interests. They could be figuratively likened to a bone being tossed at a dog to keep it from sniffing around.
Literally, it means to keep types such as Stuart Levey from following the trail of jiahd financing from the coffers to the jihadists in the field.
E = Mc 4
It's about time the United States of America revised the Friendship Treaty it signed with the Kingdom in 1934. The jig is up.
Islam teaches first degree murder (attacking and killing "unbelievers" is part and parcel of this "faith's" doctrine and practice). The world must acknowledge the massive and inherent immorality of this Islamic teaching and act accordingly. As the fountainhead of Islam (and global jihad), the Saudis must be cut down to size and put in their place (permanently)by the international community; Iran is probably due likewise in short order, plus several other major baddies like Pakistan, Chechnya, Egypt, Bosnia, and Palestine. The USA needs to take a leadership role in doing this.
pong said,
"That is why I have always been against such terms as Islamo-Facsism, Islamic extremists and so on. Keep it simple: MOSLEMS. It is easy to stereotype them: beards, clothes, ethnicity, mosques."
Of course that is what is needed in a war: an enemy you can portray simply in caricatures. This was done in World War II--you might have seen the way our Japanese enemy was drawn by political cartoonists.
What is commonly bandied about, however, is the sentiment that "we are not against Moslems, only against Islam." It is something that was forced upon us by political correctness and is held as the proper course to combat our "War on Terror."
Islam is an ideology, a succession of thoughts that sprang from a mind (whose health is still in question) that are called ideas.
Ideas do not float around in the ether. They are carried in the minds of men (and women--msulimahs) and flow from there into spoken or writen (and typed) words.
What men (and muslimahs) have the ideas that form Islam on their minds? Why MOSLEMS of course! What a revelation!
But is it safe? Is it safe to say that we are fighting Moslems? Can we say that the men we kill in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in secret crevices all over the world, are Moslems? Isn't better to call them "jihadists," so that the "moderate" Moslem who is biding his time until the violent Moslems and the subversive Moslems in our system have taken over so that he can come out and declare that Islam reigns supreme does not feel verbally assaulted?
No, I do not believe that it is safe--yet. The time will come. but right now, if you say we are warring against Moslems, you will be a very unpopular person. You will be hit with that there are "several billion" Moslems all over the world, and do you want to fight all of them? What odds will you be taking on?
Billions of Moslems or whatever they claim, we--non-Moslems--still outnumber them, so when it's a numbers game, we are ahead. Technologically, as long as we keep them from sticking their right paws into our classified data, there is no contest. (I hope that they have the sense and common decency to keep their left ones safely out of our business. We do find them offensive.)
So what is there to be afraid of? Our government, our corporations, our every channel to speak our piece. It is not "political correctness," it is fear--fear of being shut up, censored, kicked off websites, and if we speak up in a public forum of being physically assaulted and injured or killed that keep us from telling the truth.
And it is not only our fear, but the fear of those who own and control the venues we want to speak our piece on that keeps us from "calling it what it is."
Also, if we call "a spade a spade," (or Islamic fundamentalism MOSLEMS) will we be protected by the law? Not likely as if you tell the truth you will be accused of "hate speech," and incitement against a "religion."
Hence speak up at your own risk. There is no one to protect you. No lifeguards on the beach. And there are plenty of riptides.
A propos of pogo's proposal to call a "spade a spade," that is what we are fighting against is not so much the abstract "Islam," but MOSLEMS:
Islam and Muslim, is there a difference?
The Saudis, sorry George W, are not on “our” side; if one believes this (listening George W?) one would have to believe in the Tooth-Fairy, too.
As said, the Saudis are covering their own interests, with the hope their subversive endeavours throughout the US and other Western-Democracies are bountiful. With the likes of George W. and others putting their musings under their pillows, the Saudis are having a hoot at our, ultimate, expense.
Apparently, George W. (a major disappointment) and others are possessed by a death-wish at our expense.
Yes, ballzack,
The correct answer to the question, "Which side are they on?" is: on the side of the House of Saud.
They arrest them with one hand and then quietly free them with the other.
Chuckling.
A shell game that apparently dazzles the dumb infidel dogs.
Truckling.
“Abu Zubaydah, a captured Al-Qaeda operative, claimed that the House of Saud had made a deal with Al-Qaeda: financing for the jihad around the world, in exchange for immunity from jihadi attacks within Saudi Arabia itself.”
Yes, but Zubaydah is not the only one with such a claim. This is explained in historical context in the following interesting Book TV video on the book “The Siege of Mecca: The Forgotten Uprising in Islam's Holiest Shrine and the Birth of al-Qaeda “
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8671&SectionName=&PlayMedia=Yes
And I don’t know why one should be sure this deal is completely off. The Saudi family still wants support from the clerics who are hardly moderate Muslims.
Just tell the Saudis to leave our Booze and Whores alone and go HOME.
Spencer: The Saudis: Which Side Are They On?
Is this a trick question?
Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 5, 2008 3:04 PM
That was an excellent comment, and in my opinion, one of the biggest questions ever posed here at JW. The answer is also quite complex.
unicorns62000 wrote:
"What is commonly bandied about, however, is the sentiment that "we are not against Moslems, only against Islam." It is something that was forced upon us by political correctness and is held as the proper course to combat our "War on Terror."
In actuality, PC portrays this sentiment in a diametrically opposite light. Supposed moderates allow for the chastisement of individual Muslims, labeling their actions as un-Islamic, all the while protecting the irreproachable sanctity of Islam.
We ARE at war with Islam and the individual Muslim is essentially irrelevant, with the qualifier that err.. of course all jihadists are Muslims.
Complex, indeed.
Man. Bush is SOOOOO in these guys' back pocket that it sickens me. The "aid" that we give them is miliary assistance. We send our AF there every few months and they stay in medium security prisons called "bases." Time might come when we use them to seize those oil fields.
"Saudi officials announced Monday that they had arrested 56 members of Al-Qaeda, who were at an “advanced stage” of planning jihad terror attacks within the Kingdom."
blogger, Fouah al-Farhan, was "being questioned about specific violations of nonsecurity laws."
"The issue that caused all of this is because I wrote about the political prisoners here in Saudi Arabia, and they think I’m running an online campaign promoting their issue," the letter continued, saying that Mr. Farhan had been asked to sign a statement of apology.
"I’m not sure if I’m ready to do that," he wrote. "An apology for what? Apologizing because I said the government is a liar when they accused those guys to be supporting terrorism?"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019422.php