NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks and their families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday. -- from this article
Two wrongs not making a right:
1) The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Its backers clearly did not contemplate the notion of the nation-state -- a distinctly non-Islamic idea -- protecting the acts of promoters of Jihad. They did not envision the money and other support given by institutions and individuals who, in turn, are supported by that state. They never thought of the attitudes and acts of that state, in collaboration with a fanatical religious establishment, as it uses tens of billions of dollars to further Jihad around the world.
2) Apparently there is a "terrorism" exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, but Saudi Arabia is not on the list of sponsors of terrorism. This is because the State Department, or powerful people within it, decided to keep Saudi Arabia off. But Saudi support for mosques and madrasas, where hate against Infidels is inculcated, is not in dispute. This teaching provides the atmospherics that lead Saudis, and others, to sign up for conducting violent Jihad by what they think of as qitaal and we correctly call terrorism. These atmospherics are created in the miasma emanating from the texts of Islam, -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- and not from a "perversion" of Islam. The “perversion” charge is common although no one ever quite manages to offer even a single Qur'anic passage or story from the Hadith that has been interpolated, or made up, for the use of these "extremists" and "radical extremists" or "extremist radicals."
Of course Saudi Arabia should be on that list.
No matter how often people talk about the "need" not to offend Saudi Arabia, such talk is wrong. It misses the point and all kinds of point. Saudi Arabia is hopelessly dependent on us, and on the outside world, for its wage-slaves, for its protection (of the regime especially), and for access to education and medical care. It is we, or rather, it is those in the capitals of the West, who as individuals -- those who leave "public service" (ex-diplomats, ex-Congressmen, ex-intelligence agents), as well as journalists and professors who can benefit from showing the "right attitude" toward Saudi Arabia -- have convinced ourselves, and convinced too many of those in power, that "we just can't alienate Saudi Arabia" because we "need their oil." It just isn't true. It shows a misunderstanding of the oil market, and of Saudi dependence. It has allowed individuals who may benefit from being rewarded directly or indirectly by the Saudis to confuse their own private well-being with the well-being of the United States.
No favors need be done, none, in order to obtain oil from Saudi Arabia, just as no favors need be done, none, for one's local gas station other than to pay the stated price for the gas. The whole relationship is wrong. See J. B. Kelly, at this website -- "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies" -- for observations about the misreading of Saudi Arabia, which began long ago in the ARAMCO propaganda and at the State Department.
Which candidate for President will, sensing how deeply wrong is this decision, and how unpopular Saudi Arabia has become despite its vast propaganda campaign in this country (much of it hidden from view), will use this case and make it into a political cause celebre? Which candidate will point to this decision, and deplore openly the role of the State Department in protecting Saudi Arabia? In other cases, it has gone to bat for Iran, for Libya, for the PLO, though in all of those cases, too, that going to bat made no moral sense, and what's more, made no geopolitical sense.
But the State Department's so-called Middle East "experts" are stuck in a time-warp. They can't free themselves from their own cliches and misreadings of Saudi Arabia, of both its "friendliness" (it's nonsense) and its "power" over us. It has no power over us. We should first be clear about that ourselves, and about why it is so, then explain to the Al-Saud that we understand that better, and they will have to as well. And as a sign of that new understanding, on both sides, we want an immediate halt to the Saudi financing -- about 100 billion dollars so far -- used to spread Islam in the Lands of the Infidels, and to propagandize on behalf of both Islam and of Saudi Arabia. They don't like it? Too bad. They'll make noises about "selling our oil" elsewhere? The oil market is fungible. Saudi Arabia sells us oil at the same market prices as does (or would) any other producer, whether friend or enemy. And all those non-liquid assets various Gulf Arabs have bought in the West are...non-liquid, and can be seized, if the mood comes upon us, and we remember what we did to the assets of those deemed enemy aliens during World War II. Are not those in Saudi Arabia supporting, directly and indirectly, the worldwide Jihad, not "enemy aliens"? Why not?
I can not seeing either of the two major Party candidates doing so; one is a mohammedan sympathizer at best and the other a hopeless internationalist-he is likely to give strongly worded statements of concern but little else.
We never needed those ignorant Bedouins, we needed the oil underneath them.
They'll make noises about "selling our oil" elsewhere? The oil market is fungible. Saudi Arabia sells us oil at the same market prices as does (or would) any other producer, whether friend or enemy. And all those non-liquid assets various Gulf Arabs have bought in the West are...non-liquid, and can be seized, if the mood comes upon us, and we remember what we did to the assets of those deemed enemy aliens during World War II. Are not those in Saudi Arabia supporting, directly and indirectly, the worldwide Jihad, not "enemy aliens"? Why not? Posted by: Hugh
Worse case we put a 'freeze' on the price we will pay for Saudi oil. Let them then sell it elsewhere on the world market. Our 'freeze' will set a 'price of last resort' which will act as a bottom fishing price for world oil. By doing this we take the power away from the OPEC cartels and Saudi production quotas, and call our price the oil standard. (This is similar to issuing rationing coupons for gasoline during WW II, which may mean we tighten our belts for a time, but in the end we recapture control over the world oil market pricing, and dislodge Saudi Arabia as the key player.) We'll still buy their oil, from the fungible world trading of oil, but stop dancing to their tunes of what oil prices should be, or what our national politics should be. Then whatever quotas they set for themselves is secondary, because in the end they must sell their oil. They can't eat it. Starve them, and Islamic Jihad starves with them.
It will never happen in the West. We do not have the intestinal fortitude to be forthright with the Saudis. Look at what happened in Britain? A scandal was revealed about corruption and kickback money in some defense contract between Britain and Saudi Arabia. It was obvious that the Saudis broke laws and were going to be prosecuted. We know what happened in that story. The Saudis threatened the British with cancellation of defense contracts and the British Government quickly quashed that investigation. The West does not even enforce our laws. We are like Jello!!! No spine to stand upright with.
There is no energy crisis. The United States is one of the leading producers of electricity in the world. All we need are better storage devices.
If the world stops burning oil in transportation (we still need oil in our petrochemical industry), what will the Saudis sell? Sand?
We will dump the Saudis when politicians fear their own constituents. We need a Days of Rage in which thousands of people ring the local congressional offices of each politician who fraternizes with the Saudi enemy, or hobnobs with CAIR, or the local terrorist-connected mosque or imam (they practically all are by nature of the ummah and the Koran), or with businesses that are doing direct business with the Saudis. The politicians must pledge in word not to consort with enemies any more, and we, the People, will give them just this one pass. If they refuse, We know they are corrupt, not merely dense. They have reneged on their promise to be representitives of the People. They have chosen the path of political malpractice for personal gain. We then take it to the next step.
Of interest to note how many of our Beltway politicans are taking money from the Saudis. It is known that the Saudis employ many retired politicans as lobbiest. Prehaps it is time that we the citizens call them on the carpet.
Not nearly far enough for my tastes,Hugh:
1. No Saudi male may drive in the US. No boat driving,not even a scooter or go-cart.Zero opportunity to run over infidels.
2. All saudi males,royalty included, must wear a full-legnth burka the entire time they are visiting. Removal equals immediate lashings.
3. All Saudi visitors both male and female will have round the clock "minders" just like in China. Every word and deed will be videotaped, even inside mosques.All Saudis will be detained until every word they speak or hear is translated into English.
4. All Americans found out to be secretly or openly in their employment will loose all security clearance status and be prosecuted for Treason.
5. No Saudi will ever be allowed to board a plane in the US, leaving the US, or arriving. They have lost their plane priveledges.
I can still see the news picture of several years ago of George W. Bush walking in the white house garden tightly holding the hand of a Saudi prince.
And then there is Jimmy Carter. The recipient of enormous sums of Saudi largess who never misses an opportunity to praise the benign kingdom.
American infatuation with with the House of Saud and its oil comes from the very top.
How many more G.W. Bushes and Jimmy Carters are there in the halls of influence in the U.S.A.? How many now have huge, secure pensions thanks to the generosity of the Arabian House of Many Princes? I would guestimate thousands.
No More Ham, Ed,
they can only come here by dhows, with salt pork rations.