Interesting... too bad they didn't get the teleprompter right - her few hesitations/mispronunciations don't help the quality, and therefore the authority of the message.
If I followed Frank Gaffney's and others' recent comments correctly, he is, in essence, saying that normative orthodox Islamic Shariah intrinsically entails the violent overthrow of the United States government. Based on what I have studied and learned regarding contemporary, mainstream, orthodox Islamic thinking, I fail to see how he can come to any such assertion. It doesn't hold up.
Regarding the claim that Shariah finance cannot be separated from any of the other facets of Shariah, including admittedly problematic ones, if we're going to play a six-degrees-of-separation game regarding any financial ideas and products, then there will probably be nothing left to invest in anywhere. The scandal of our degraded culture which doesn't support Life and Family, coupled with virtually no regard for our Constitional principles, apart from a handful of heroes like Ron Paul, are a far greater threat to us than anyone or anything Islamic, and ought to be the true targets of any guidelines for financial investment.
fairuzfan: Either Shariah has as one of its goals the replacement of all constitutional and legal systems with itself or it doesn't. And this does not necessarily have to be done violently. Specific to America, if Shariah does demand the eventual replacement of the US Constitution with itself, which I assert most emphatically that it does, then participating in any Shariah finance operation is foolish at best and treasonous at worst, irrespective of degrees of separation and any other rot undermining the traditioanl American fabric in contemporary America.
The Rightwing have been doing business with the worst Sharia merchant medieval jihadist Wahabbist monstrosity of them all and the mother of all fanatical terrorists Saudi Arabia.
And none of the `scared' people here have ever questioned the leading Neocons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfled about their links to the House of Saud where terrorism was spawned.
Instead they convinced you to attack Iraq, a country that hated Islamist fanatics and never harmed a single American ever. And off you all went yeehaa all the way to Baghdad.
Now they are focusing you on Iran another country that did America no harm whatsoever since their capture and incaceration of American diplomats 30 years ago.
Do they Right ever know when they are being gulled and manipulated? Isnt it saudi we should be focsuing on not Iran or Syria?
Can anyone point to a discussion of the financial/banking model underlying "shariah finance" shorn of any religious or ideological connections? It should be possible to examine its comparative merits, or lack thereof, relative to other financial/banking models on purely theoretical grounds. Examples of things that would be interesting to find about are how it treats financial instruments like futures, warrants, swaps, options, etc., the whole world of derivatives in fact, and the problem of the evaluation of risk. If one is going to be oppose something, it is necessary first to understand it at a level deeper than just "if the Muslims are doing it then it must be bad." Teneo hostilis.
The implications of Sharia-finance are staggering. There is every possibility that eventually, it will be the norm and no-Sharia finance will just cater to niche markets.
Eventually, so-called "Sharia-finance" will become a new lever to put economic pressure on Israel and anyone else who defies the imperatives of Islam. It may up becoming the financial equivalent of the Arab trade embargo on Israel.
There are so many other implications...financial squeezes put on media outlets that are not politically-correct, businesses that refuse the demands of Muslim employees for special dispensation, and on and on.
This is huge folks. Money makes the world go 'round.
"The Rightwing have been doing business with the worst Sharia merchant medieval jihadist Wahabbist monstrosity of them all and the mother of all fanatical terrorists Saudi Arabia.
And none of the `scared' people here have ever questioned the leading Neocons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfled about their links to the House of Saud where terrorism was spawned."
-- from a poster above
All kinds of people have been "doing business" with the Al Saud in the capitals of the West. Some are, in Washington, Republicans. Some are Democrats (the first full-time propagandist for Saudi Arabia, after ARAMCO itself, was Fred Dutton, a Kennedy family apparatchik).
When you assert that the "'scared' people" here have never questioned the ties of such people as "Bush, Cheney and Rumfeld" you are very wrong. Bush has been raked over the coals at this website, every which way, and so have such Republicans ("right-wing" or not) as James Baker, he of the Baker Institute, and the head of that Institute Edward Djerijian (former American ambassador to Syria), and all kinds of corporate promoters of such things as the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia back in 1980-81 (United Technologies and the Whitney Corporation leading all the rest).
You have not read enough at this site to realize that, or perhaps you do, and are wilfully ignoring all the evidence: the Saudis have been attacked right and left, and so have their supportres, right and left, and the celebrated essay of J. B. Kelly, "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies," was typed and up-loaded onto the Internet by a long-time visitor to this site, so that it might be shared with the world.
Of course the Al Saud, and Saudi Arabia, are possibly the most malevolent, and because of their great unearned wealth, and the ways they use it, very likely the single most dangerous threat to Infidels.
But let's be clear: Islam is the real threat, and the Saudis offer only the most fanatical adoption of it to the greatest extent. Next comes Iran, and then Sudan and Pakistan. But all Muslim states and societies, all those who take seriously the texts and tenets of Islam, all those who exhibit the attitudes that Islam inculcates -- especially the belief that there exist a state of permanent war, if not necessarily open warfare, between Muslims and non-Muslims, Believers and Infidels, and it the duty of every Muslim to participate in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- remain a threat.
Let's not pretend the only worry is Saudi Arabia, or, still worse, merely the Al Saud despots who rule, and largely own, that country. It isn't.
1) they are not pursuing nuclear weapons (yet, that is, they are waiting to see if the world will arrest Iran's program); conversely, Iran aggressively pursues such weapons
2) their support for terrorism is mostly within the purvue of private individuals and concerns (including members of the House of Saud) and is largely confined to financial assistance; Iran is an active state-sponsor of terrorism, including arming, training, and engaging in direct operations.
3) they are price doves within OPEC; hawks like Iran and Venezuela would prefer oil at astronomical levels to be enrich themselves and impoverish their enemies
Let's face it....for the time being (due to our own negligence), the oil exporters have got us by the gonads. Soliciting the Saudis to be responsible in their pricing and production policies is eminently practical; insuring Saudi territorial integrity is naked real-politic and - again - eminently practical.
It's so easy for us as arm-chair policy-makers to sit around venting our frustrations without taking into account unalterable realities of the real world. The Saudis are certainly malevolent, but for the reasons stated above, they are not the direct threat that Iran is.
Being asked few friendly questions is not what should've been done about Saudi Arabia it should have been in the firing line not Iraq.
That is how serious the threat from this awful monstrosity is. Afterall almost all of those who attacked the twin towers were Saudis. Not one was Iraqi. Al-Qaeda's leader is also Saudi. Saudi money and ideology is behind every Islamist terrorist outfit and outrage from Malysia to Morocco. Almost every single islamist ideologue recruiter of terrorists have roots leading right back to Medina University.
Yet the Rightwing leadership and business establishment have links more bewldering than the goings on Jihadist's mind on steroids.
And I disagree with the notion that Democrats have as much relationships as the Republicans. that is simply fallacious. The whole of the Republican oilmen who took over America since early Eighties have direct business links with the house of Saud. That is why they didnt attack it after Sept 11.
Google "J. B. Kelly" and "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies." It was put up here, at this webiste, first. See what he has to say about the propagandists of ARAMCO.
You make the mistake of thinking that the problem is confined to this or that end of the self-identifying,often quite misleadingly so, of the political spectrum. Greed can motivate all kinds of people to do all kinds of things, and they need not be businessmen either. And there are other promptings too -- a belief that Muslims, or Arabs, are somehow the "victims" of the West, when it is they who have, for more than a millennium, whenever and wherever they could, who have been making war on every non-Muslim land or people they encountered.
Why turn this into a rant against the "Right"? In Europe it is not the "Right" but mostly the "Left" that is preventing the dissemination of knowledge about Islam (not the kind put out by the Da'wa boys, but the kind that helps Infidels to understand the meaning, and thus the menace, of Islam). There's blame enough for all who deserve it to be given, or at least to get, their share.
Google "J. B. Kelly" and "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies." It was put up here, at this webiste, first. See what he has to say about the propagandists of ARAMCO.
You make the mistake of thinking that the problem is confined to this or that end of the self-identifying,often quite misleadingly so, of the political spectrum. Greed can motivate all kinds of people to do all kinds of things, and they need not be businessmen either. And there are other promptings too -- a belief that Muslims, or Arabs, are somehow the "victims" of the West, when it is they who have, for more than a millennium, whenever and wherever they could, who have been making war on every non-Muslim land or people they encountered.
Why turn this into a rant against the "Right"? In Europe it is not the "Right" but mostly the "Left" that is preventing the dissemination of knowledge about Islam (not the kind put out by the Da'wa boys, but the kind that helps Infidels to understand the meaning, and thus the menace, of Islam). There's blame enough for all who deserve it to be given, or at least to get, their share.
So we bombed the Iraqis to smithereens because they were less powerful than the Saudis?
We cannot complain about terrorism and yet do nothing about the country whose money and ideology started it and fuels it.
And it is not only individual members and societal groups that fund and support terrorism in Saudi Arabia it is the government itself. It runs Medina University, publishes curricular standards that institutionalise hatred of Jews and infidels and it trains and pays the medieval Imams who spew veonom after every prayer meeting up and down the Islamic world.
There is a thin line bewteen cool-headed pragmatism and supping with evil through moral cowardice. Our kowttowung to saudi arabia falls firmly within the parameters of the latter.
I do agree wkith most of what you say about Iran except of course it did not carry out a single terrorist act against us. It does support Hezbollah who used to attack Israel but are disciplined force with clear political agenda. Iran does not support al-Qaeda. So my conclusion is as before: this is diversion from the source of the real threat.
I do agree wkith most of what you say about Iran except of course it did not carry out a single terrorist act against us."
-- from a posting above
The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, with close to 400 victims, is believed to have been carried out by Iran, or at the behest of Iran and with its active support.
The androlepsy at the American Embassy, which lasted 444 days, was an act of terrorism.
The Iranian link to other bombings, as at the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, surely is an act of terrorism that, while not carried out, in the narrowest sense, "against us," was intended to "send a message" not only to Israel but to all the "Christian nations" -- as the Iranians think of them.
The Saudis are certainly malevolent, but for the reasons stated above, they are not the direct threat that Iran is.
I beg to differ wholeheartedly with your opinion on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is more dangerous than Iran is. Now don't get me wrong, Iran is a threat and is aggressively pursuing Nuclear Weapons, no doubt to launch attacks against Israel and the West. It is also acquiring protection from the former superpower of Russia, also a threat to Western Security, with Putin's puppet Medvedev, rewriting the Russian constitution to allow Putin back into the Kremlin and Russian leadership(not that he ever stopped).
What you are failing to see about Saudi Arabia is that they are responsible for Stealth Jihad in the West. It is the Saudis with their trillions who are funding the building of the Mosques in the USA and Europe. It is the Saudis who are responsible for the finance for the Islamic Studies in Europe and the USA. It is the Saudis who are responsible(in the UK anyway) of the promotion of Wahabism, with its goal of Islamising the World. It is the Saudis responsible for the creation of Islamic Societies within Universities and the indoctrination within Faith schools too.
Saudi Arabia ARE the epitome of the Muslims in a Robe who smile and greet you warmly and pull out the Kalashnikovs and grenades from under their robes, when you turn your back. It is Saudi who pose the gravest danger to all free countries in the West, because they are deceitful and two faced.
Iran may be acquiring Nuclear weapons to go into armed conflict with the Kuffar but Saudi are using their wealth to manipulate Politicians, pay the Media moguls and bribe the Law Lords to rewrite Laws in order to being about change to welcome the control of Islamisation all over the World. We have more to fear from Saudi Arabia because they pretend to be our friends, when they are most certainly not. At least with Iran we know where we stand but with Saudi Arabia, who knows.
I am well aware that the Saudis have infiltrated almost every facet of our society with their money and influence. They are a major threat to our way of life, no doubt about it.
I was referring to the 'hard' Jihad and the prospects for direct and imminent military confrontation with Iran.
Both countries are dangerous, but in different ways. I would agree the 'Stealth Jihad' is more dangerous in the long-run, particularly because we've shown no inclination to counter it.
But I'd also like to point out that a major terrorist attack inside America involving a dirty bomb or biological weapons would immediately transform our priorities in this regard.
GORGI: "Iran does not support al-Qaeda. So my conclusion is as before: this is diversion from the source of the real threat."
Cooperation between Iran and Al Qaeda has been extensive.
1) Iran was the base of operations for Al Qaeda attacks on US facilities in Riyadh ('95) and Dahrain ('96)
2) Iran gave Al Qaeda sanctuary after the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001
3) there is every indication Iran has supported Al Qaeda insurgents in attacks on US forces in Iraq
As for your assertion that "[Iran] did not carry out a single terrorist act against us"...
Iran has been directly responsible for multiple IED attacks against US forces in Iraq via their Shia proxies.
As for your contention of "moral cowardice" involving the Saudis, there's certainly much truth to it. But militarily attacking them for their vicious propaganda and their dawa is hardly an appropriate response.
Is the direct threat more dangerous than the indirect one?
With Iran, America knows to screen would be immigrants and tourists. They are being tracked wherever they go, along with the movements of Uranium on the Black market too.
With a direct attack there is a way to stop it before it starts but with Stealth Jihad, different story altogether.
Saudi Arabia's stealth Jihad is buying the UK at the moment and by the looks of it the USA too. The financial crisis caused by many factors in the West is giving the wealthy Muslims just what they want to continue Jihad in the West and Islamisation.
The process of Gramscian Hegemony is already well under way. The UK introduced the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill in 2005 which has effectively killed Freedom of Speech.
You may have heard of 'Lionheart' the English blogger who has fled the UK for the USA, because the government wants to lock him up for putting up a Blog, warning the British people of Islam, when all he is doing is the same as what you and I do here on a daily basis.
In direct threat is far worse as over a period of time, they'll take full control of every pillar of our society leading to eventual control. Direct threats are always there but can be countered and stopped, however the in-direct threat of Islamisation through stealth, changed laws, freedoms, liberties and human rights until there are none left.
The In direct threat is far more dangerous than the direct one in my eyes and our society is already being indoctrinated and brainwashed by our governments and media into believing that Islam is a Religion of Peace. It's total and utter madness and nothing less - Cultural suicide.
Certainly both are dangerous. But it's hard to imagine the Iranians having a government more inimical to US interests, while - as evil as the Saudis are - they are not pursuing nuclear weapons, they are not price-hawks on oil, and they do not arm, train and operationally direct terrorist attacks from their soil.
I'd like to re-post my 2:50 PM query above, about whether anyone knows where one might find details of the shariah financial/banking model compared to interest-based credit systems. Fairuzfan, you seem to be in favor of the scheme. Got an ISBN number where its technical operation is described? I'm not interested in any ideological or theological or historical harangues, just the details of how it operates. Anyone?
I'm with Cornelius here on which state is more inimical to American interests, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Both are bastards but SA is a bastard we still have some influence over while Iran is out in far left field where we can't reach it except through the use of force or its implied use. Too bad either country exists, but Iran is the greater danger of the two, especially where the possibility of direct, immediate and palpable human tragedy is concerned.
I'm with Cornelius here on which state is more inimical to American interests, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Both are bastards but SA is a bastard we still have some influence over while Iran is out in far left field where we can't reach it except through the use of force or its implied use. Too bad either country exists, but Iran is the greater danger of the two, especially where the possibility of direct, immediate and palpable human tragedy is concerned.
It occurs to me that when a Muslim, or a Muslim apologist points to one of two Muslim entities and yells loudly 'Don't look at A! A's not so bad! Hit B! Quick! B's the enemy!'
the proper kafir response is merely to ignore the squawks, continue looking steadily and suspiciously at A as well as B, assess the situation coldly and rationally, work out which of the possible targets presents the greatest immediate threat (from a non-Muslim POV) and then wallop A, or B or both at once.
It occurs to me that when a Muslim, or a Muslim apologist points to one of two Muslim entities and yells loudly 'Don't look at A! A's not so bad! Hit B! Quick! B's the enemy!'
the proper kafir response is merely to ignore the squawks, continue looking steadily and suspiciously at A as well as B, assess the situation coldly and rationally, work out which of the possible targets presents the greatest immediate threat (from a non-Muslim POV) and then wallop A, or B or both at once.
Poetic justice for those greedy collaborator human lice who bring sharia into the United States would be for them to get a dose of sharia law themselves, such as:
"before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died."
--from story of Mohammad, acting as judge and jury, torturing to death some alleged criminals. al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261
While following links from the above Youtube clip of Joy Brighton's comments on Sharia finance, I came across the following clip of a Sept 07 GOP at which a Jim Horn was talking about the threat of Islam, making points with which Jihadwatchers will be familiar: true, verifiable and spot on comments. CAIR has only just found the clip and decided to post it, urging viewers to write the organizers objecting to “the virulent attack” and slandering Mr Horn as being part of an anti-Islam “hate group”, when all he is doing is reporting what we know to be the truth of this baleful religion (sorry, “cult”). I chose to write to Ms Sadler instead to *congratulate* her organisation for bringing some home truths to the public.
Can other Jihadwatchers do the same? Help stop yet another attempt by CAIR to block legitimate criticism of Islam’s supremacist doctrines.
----------------
(IMPORTANT NOTE: This video is from 2007, but just came to light [Sept 08])
CAIR has located an online video of a virulent attack on Islam and Muslim by a speaker at a convention of the National Federation of Republican Women held in September 2007. The speaker, a leader of an anti-Islam hate group, is applauded loudly as he calls Islam a cult and says terrorists are honest Muslims.
View the video:
ACTION: (As always, be POLITE.)
CONTACT the National Federation of Republican Women to express your concern about the groups promotion of anti-Muslim hate.[NB: remember this is CAIR speaking here, NOT me, Meeker!....]
Ms. Shirley Sadler
President
National Federation of Republican Women
124 N. Alfred Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.548.9688
703.548.9836 (fax)
"sinister"...yes, that adjective is more descriptive of the Saudis than the Iranians.
Let me repeat though, what I said earlier about the Stealth Jihad, not just to you but to all here who would listen...
The Stealth Jihad appears more dangerous (and frustrating) to us because our cultural gate-keepers and our security policies are doing nothing whatsoever to counter it. But in the event there is a dirty bomb or a biological attack on one of our cities, killing thousands and making an entire urban center uninhabitable for years, we will refocus anew on the hard jihad...and footbaths in an airport, as important as that is, will suddenly seem like small potatoes.
This was a great video, but it really would have helped their case if they had explained what "Islamic charity" means, not just that several have been shut down for funding terrorism. Muslims do not believe in charity beyond feeding someone in your town if they are hungry. "Zakat" does not mean charity. It means "alms for jihad." Muslims believe that whatever misfortunes befall people are, inshallah, their own fault for not being Muslims or for not being good enough Muslims, so the Indonesians, for example, brought the tsunami upon themselves. That's why there has never been a single legitimate Islamic charity and why there never will be. It's not just that a few "Islamic charities" have proven to be sponsoring terrorism. They all have, even if we infidels failed to indict or convict. They were all funding jihad. That's also why all Muslims are terrorists: they all finance terror. "Zakat," the 4th pillar, obligates Muslims to donate 2.5% of their income or $1725 annually to JIHAD, not the poor. Ever wonder why every "Islamic charity" goes to help "Palestinians" who have survived quite well parasitizing us infidels to the extent that they almost never have jobs and are even almost as overweight as Americans?
Download ALMS FOR JIHAD now. Because you can't buy it anywhere (thanks, Saudi Arabia). It also talks about the Ikhwan quite a bit. You need a bittorrent client. I like Azureus.
Also, I don't know what to do if you have mutual funds, but I would urge everyone to get their money into a credit union so as to not enable this kind of evil. You also usually make slightly more interest on your checking account and on CDs, which is nice. Yet another way in which Muslims have made me sound like a wackjob. I now advocate getting your money out of banks. Oh wait, no, banks made that sound sensible by collapsing one after another.
Interesting... too bad they didn't get the teleprompter right - her few hesitations/mispronunciations don't help the quality, and therefore the authority of the message.
If I followed Frank Gaffney's and others' recent comments correctly, he is, in essence, saying that normative orthodox Islamic Shariah intrinsically entails the violent overthrow of the United States government. Based on what I have studied and learned regarding contemporary, mainstream, orthodox Islamic thinking, I fail to see how he can come to any such assertion. It doesn't hold up.
Regarding the claim that Shariah finance cannot be separated from any of the other facets of Shariah, including admittedly problematic ones, if we're going to play a six-degrees-of-separation game regarding any financial ideas and products, then there will probably be nothing left to invest in anywhere. The scandal of our degraded culture which doesn't support Life and Family, coupled with virtually no regard for our Constitional principles, apart from a handful of heroes like Ron Paul, are a far greater threat to us than anyone or anything Islamic, and ought to be the true targets of any guidelines for financial investment.
fairuzfan: Either Shariah has as one of its goals the replacement of all constitutional and legal systems with itself or it doesn't. And this does not necessarily have to be done violently. Specific to America, if Shariah does demand the eventual replacement of the US Constitution with itself, which I assert most emphatically that it does, then participating in any Shariah finance operation is foolish at best and treasonous at worst, irrespective of degrees of separation and any other rot undermining the traditioanl American fabric in contemporary America.
Wow, that video sent chills down my spine. It's shocking that Americans would be that hard-up to make money - blood money that is.
I signed up with ACT for America about 4 weeks ago, and I recommend everyone who is a freedom loving and conscientious American do the same.
I heard her say she's a Democrat. That's good; at least she can't be marginalized as a right-wing crackpot!
Perhaps Obama & his new crew will take heed.
The Rightwing have been doing business with the worst Sharia merchant medieval jihadist Wahabbist monstrosity of them all and the mother of all fanatical terrorists Saudi Arabia.
And none of the `scared' people here have ever questioned the leading Neocons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfled about their links to the House of Saud where terrorism was spawned.
Instead they convinced you to attack Iraq, a country that hated Islamist fanatics and never harmed a single American ever. And off you all went yeehaa all the way to Baghdad.
Now they are focusing you on Iran another country that did America no harm whatsoever since their capture and incaceration of American diplomats 30 years ago.
Do they Right ever know when they are being gulled and manipulated? Isnt it saudi we should be focsuing on not Iran or Syria?
Can anyone point to a discussion of the financial/banking model underlying "shariah finance" shorn of any religious or ideological connections? It should be possible to examine its comparative merits, or lack thereof, relative to other financial/banking models on purely theoretical grounds. Examples of things that would be interesting to find about are how it treats financial instruments like futures, warrants, swaps, options, etc., the whole world of derivatives in fact, and the problem of the evaluation of risk. If one is going to be oppose something, it is necessary first to understand it at a level deeper than just "if the Muslims are doing it then it must be bad." Teneo hostilis.
The implications of Sharia-finance are staggering. There is every possibility that eventually, it will be the norm and no-Sharia finance will just cater to niche markets.
Eventually, so-called "Sharia-finance" will become a new lever to put economic pressure on Israel and anyone else who defies the imperatives of Islam. It may up becoming the financial equivalent of the Arab trade embargo on Israel.
There are so many other implications...financial squeezes put on media outlets that are not politically-correct, businesses that refuse the demands of Muslim employees for special dispensation, and on and on.
This is huge folks. Money makes the world go 'round.
"The Rightwing have been doing business with the worst Sharia merchant medieval jihadist Wahabbist monstrosity of them all and the mother of all fanatical terrorists Saudi Arabia.
And none of the `scared' people here have ever questioned the leading Neocons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfled about their links to the House of Saud where terrorism was spawned."
-- from a poster above
All kinds of people have been "doing business" with the Al Saud in the capitals of the West. Some are, in Washington, Republicans. Some are Democrats (the first full-time propagandist for Saudi Arabia, after ARAMCO itself, was Fred Dutton, a Kennedy family apparatchik).
When you assert that the "'scared' people" here have never questioned the ties of such people as "Bush, Cheney and Rumfeld" you are very wrong. Bush has been raked over the coals at this website, every which way, and so have such Republicans ("right-wing" or not) as James Baker, he of the Baker Institute, and the head of that Institute Edward Djerijian (former American ambassador to Syria), and all kinds of corporate promoters of such things as the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia back in 1980-81 (United Technologies and the Whitney Corporation leading all the rest).
You have not read enough at this site to realize that, or perhaps you do, and are wilfully ignoring all the evidence: the Saudis have been attacked right and left, and so have their supportres, right and left, and the celebrated essay of J. B. Kelly, "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies," was typed and up-loaded onto the Internet by a long-time visitor to this site, so that it might be shared with the world.
Of course the Al Saud, and Saudi Arabia, are possibly the most malevolent, and because of their great unearned wealth, and the ways they use it, very likely the single most dangerous threat to Infidels.
But let's be clear: Islam is the real threat, and the Saudis offer only the most fanatical adoption of it to the greatest extent. Next comes Iran, and then Sudan and Pakistan. But all Muslim states and societies, all those who take seriously the texts and tenets of Islam, all those who exhibit the attitudes that Islam inculcates -- especially the belief that there exist a state of permanent war, if not necessarily open warfare, between Muslims and non-Muslims, Believers and Infidels, and it the duty of every Muslim to participate in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- remain a threat.
Let's not pretend the only worry is Saudi Arabia, or, still worse, merely the Al Saud despots who rule, and largely own, that country. It isn't.
Gorgi,
As despicable as the House of Saud is...
1) they are not pursuing nuclear weapons (yet, that is, they are waiting to see if the world will arrest Iran's program); conversely, Iran aggressively pursues such weapons
2) their support for terrorism is mostly within the purvue of private individuals and concerns (including members of the House of Saud) and is largely confined to financial assistance; Iran is an active state-sponsor of terrorism, including arming, training, and engaging in direct operations.
3) they are price doves within OPEC; hawks like Iran and Venezuela would prefer oil at astronomical levels to be enrich themselves and impoverish their enemies
Let's face it....for the time being (due to our own negligence), the oil exporters have got us by the gonads. Soliciting the Saudis to be responsible in their pricing and production policies is eminently practical; insuring Saudi territorial integrity is naked real-politic and - again - eminently practical.
It's so easy for us as arm-chair policy-makers to sit around venting our frustrations without taking into account unalterable realities of the real world. The Saudis are certainly malevolent, but for the reasons stated above, they are not the direct threat that Iran is.
Hugh
Being asked few friendly questions is not what should've been done about Saudi Arabia it should have been in the firing line not Iraq.
That is how serious the threat from this awful monstrosity is. Afterall almost all of those who attacked the twin towers were Saudis. Not one was Iraqi. Al-Qaeda's leader is also Saudi. Saudi money and ideology is behind every Islamist terrorist outfit and outrage from Malysia to Morocco. Almost every single islamist ideologue recruiter of terrorists have roots leading right back to Medina University.
Yet the Rightwing leadership and business establishment have links more bewldering than the goings on Jihadist's mind on steroids.
And I disagree with the notion that Democrats have as much relationships as the Republicans. that is simply fallacious. The whole of the Republican oilmen who took over America since early Eighties have direct business links with the house of Saud. That is why they didnt attack it after Sept 11.
Google "J. B. Kelly" and "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies." It was put up here, at this webiste, first. See what he has to say about the propagandists of ARAMCO.
You make the mistake of thinking that the problem is confined to this or that end of the self-identifying,often quite misleadingly so, of the political spectrum. Greed can motivate all kinds of people to do all kinds of things, and they need not be businessmen either. And there are other promptings too -- a belief that Muslims, or Arabs, are somehow the "victims" of the West, when it is they who have, for more than a millennium, whenever and wherever they could, who have been making war on every non-Muslim land or people they encountered.
Why turn this into a rant against the "Right"? In Europe it is not the "Right" but mostly the "Left" that is preventing the dissemination of knowledge about Islam (not the kind put out by the Da'wa boys, but the kind that helps Infidels to understand the meaning, and thus the menace, of Islam). There's blame enough for all who deserve it to be given, or at least to get, their share.
Google "J. B. Kelly" and "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies." It was put up here, at this webiste, first. See what he has to say about the propagandists of ARAMCO.
You make the mistake of thinking that the problem is confined to this or that end of the self-identifying,often quite misleadingly so, of the political spectrum. Greed can motivate all kinds of people to do all kinds of things, and they need not be businessmen either. And there are other promptings too -- a belief that Muslims, or Arabs, are somehow the "victims" of the West, when it is they who have, for more than a millennium, whenever and wherever they could, who have been making war on every non-Muslim land or people they encountered.
Why turn this into a rant against the "Right"? In Europe it is not the "Right" but mostly the "Left" that is preventing the dissemination of knowledge about Islam (not the kind put out by the Da'wa boys, but the kind that helps Infidels to understand the meaning, and thus the menace, of Islam). There's blame enough for all who deserve it to be given, or at least to get, their share.
cornelius
So we bombed the Iraqis to smithereens because they were less powerful than the Saudis?
We cannot complain about terrorism and yet do nothing about the country whose money and ideology started it and fuels it.
And it is not only individual members and societal groups that fund and support terrorism in Saudi Arabia it is the government itself. It runs Medina University, publishes curricular standards that institutionalise hatred of Jews and infidels and it trains and pays the medieval Imams who spew veonom after every prayer meeting up and down the Islamic world.
There is a thin line bewteen cool-headed pragmatism and supping with evil through moral cowardice. Our kowttowung to saudi arabia falls firmly within the parameters of the latter.
I do agree wkith most of what you say about Iran except of course it did not carry out a single terrorist act against us. It does support Hezbollah who used to attack Israel but are disciplined force with clear political agenda. Iran does not support al-Qaeda. So my conclusion is as before: this is diversion from the source of the real threat.
I do agree wkith most of what you say about Iran except of course it did not carry out a single terrorist act against us."
-- from a posting above
The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, with close to 400 victims, is believed to have been carried out by Iran, or at the behest of Iran and with its active support.
The androlepsy at the American Embassy, which lasted 444 days, was an act of terrorism.
The Iranian link to other bombings, as at the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, surely is an act of terrorism that, while not carried out, in the narrowest sense, "against us," was intended to "send a message" not only to Israel but to all the "Christian nations" -- as the Iranians think of them.
Cornelius,
I beg to differ wholeheartedly with your opinion on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is more dangerous than Iran is. Now don't get me wrong, Iran is a threat and is aggressively pursuing Nuclear Weapons, no doubt to launch attacks against Israel and the West. It is also acquiring protection from the former superpower of Russia, also a threat to Western Security, with Putin's puppet Medvedev, rewriting the Russian constitution to allow Putin back into the Kremlin and Russian leadership(not that he ever stopped).
What you are failing to see about Saudi Arabia is that they are responsible for Stealth Jihad in the West. It is the Saudis with their trillions who are funding the building of the Mosques in the USA and Europe. It is the Saudis who are responsible for the finance for the Islamic Studies in Europe and the USA. It is the Saudis who are responsible(in the UK anyway) of the promotion of Wahabism, with its goal of Islamising the World. It is the Saudis responsible for the creation of Islamic Societies within Universities and the indoctrination within Faith schools too.
Saudi Arabia ARE the epitome of the Muslims in a Robe who smile and greet you warmly and pull out the Kalashnikovs and grenades from under their robes, when you turn your back. It is Saudi who pose the gravest danger to all free countries in the West, because they are deceitful and two faced.
Iran may be acquiring Nuclear weapons to go into armed conflict with the Kuffar but Saudi are using their wealth to manipulate Politicians, pay the Media moguls and bribe the Law Lords to rewrite Laws in order to being about change to welcome the control of Islamisation all over the World. We have more to fear from Saudi Arabia because they pretend to be our friends, when they are most certainly not. At least with Iran we know where we stand but with Saudi Arabia, who knows.
Richard,
I am well aware that the Saudis have infiltrated almost every facet of our society with their money and influence. They are a major threat to our way of life, no doubt about it.
I was referring to the 'hard' Jihad and the prospects for direct and imminent military confrontation with Iran.
Both countries are dangerous, but in different ways. I would agree the 'Stealth Jihad' is more dangerous in the long-run, particularly because we've shown no inclination to counter it.
But I'd also like to point out that a major terrorist attack inside America involving a dirty bomb or biological weapons would immediately transform our priorities in this regard.
GORGI: "Iran does not support al-Qaeda. So my conclusion is as before: this is diversion from the source of the real threat."
Cooperation between Iran and Al Qaeda has been extensive.
1) Iran was the base of operations for Al Qaeda attacks on US facilities in Riyadh ('95) and Dahrain ('96)
2) Iran gave Al Qaeda sanctuary after the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001
3) there is every indication Iran has supported Al Qaeda insurgents in attacks on US forces in Iraq
As for your assertion that "[Iran] did not carry out a single terrorist act against us"...
Iran has been directly responsible for multiple IED attacks against US forces in Iraq via their Shia proxies.
As for your contention of "moral cowardice" involving the Saudis, there's certainly much truth to it. But militarily attacking them for their vicious propaganda and their dawa is hardly an appropriate response.
Cornelius,
Is the direct threat more dangerous than the indirect one?
With Iran, America knows to screen would be immigrants and tourists. They are being tracked wherever they go, along with the movements of Uranium on the Black market too.
With a direct attack there is a way to stop it before it starts but with Stealth Jihad, different story altogether.
Saudi Arabia's stealth Jihad is buying the UK at the moment and by the looks of it the USA too. The financial crisis caused by many factors in the West is giving the wealthy Muslims just what they want to continue Jihad in the West and Islamisation.
The process of Gramscian Hegemony is already well under way. The UK introduced the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill in 2005 which has effectively killed Freedom of Speech.
You may have heard of 'Lionheart' the English blogger who has fled the UK for the USA, because the government wants to lock him up for putting up a Blog, warning the British people of Islam, when all he is doing is the same as what you and I do here on a daily basis.
In direct threat is far worse as over a period of time, they'll take full control of every pillar of our society leading to eventual control. Direct threats are always there but can be countered and stopped, however the in-direct threat of Islamisation through stealth, changed laws, freedoms, liberties and human rights until there are none left.
The In direct threat is far more dangerous than the direct one in my eyes and our society is already being indoctrinated and brainwashed by our governments and media into believing that Islam is a Religion of Peace. It's total and utter madness and nothing less - Cultural suicide.
Richard,
Certainly both are dangerous. But it's hard to imagine the Iranians having a government more inimical to US interests, while - as evil as the Saudis are - they are not pursuing nuclear weapons, they are not price-hawks on oil, and they do not arm, train and operationally direct terrorist attacks from their soil.
Richard,
For the record, I'm very uncomfortable being in the position of saying ANYTHING kind about the Saudis.
This all started because Gorgi suggested we should militarily attack the Saudis.
I certainly concur with you that the Saudis are much, much more influencial inside America than Iran is.
Perhaps you and I can agree on this:
"The Saudis and the Iranians present different challenges to us that require different strategies and tactics"
I'd like to re-post my 2:50 PM query above, about whether anyone knows where one might find details of the shariah financial/banking model compared to interest-based credit systems. Fairuzfan, you seem to be in favor of the scheme. Got an ISBN number where its technical operation is described? I'm not interested in any ideological or theological or historical harangues, just the details of how it operates. Anyone?
I'm with Cornelius here on which state is more inimical to American interests, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Both are bastards but SA is a bastard we still have some influence over while Iran is out in far left field where we can't reach it except through the use of force or its implied use. Too bad either country exists, but Iran is the greater danger of the two, especially where the possibility of direct, immediate and palpable human tragedy is concerned.
I'm with Cornelius here on which state is more inimical to American interests, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Both are bastards but SA is a bastard we still have some influence over while Iran is out in far left field where we can't reach it except through the use of force or its implied use. Too bad either country exists, but Iran is the greater danger of the two, especially where the possibility of direct, immediate and palpable human tragedy is concerned.
Ladies and gentlemen
It occurs to me that when a Muslim, or a Muslim apologist points to one of two Muslim entities and yells loudly 'Don't look at A! A's not so bad! Hit B! Quick! B's the enemy!'
the proper kafir response is merely to ignore the squawks, continue looking steadily and suspiciously at A as well as B, assess the situation coldly and rationally, work out which of the possible targets presents the greatest immediate threat (from a non-Muslim POV) and then wallop A, or B or both at once.
Ladies and gentlemen
It occurs to me that when a Muslim, or a Muslim apologist points to one of two Muslim entities and yells loudly 'Don't look at A! A's not so bad! Hit B! Quick! B's the enemy!'
the proper kafir response is merely to ignore the squawks, continue looking steadily and suspiciously at A as well as B, assess the situation coldly and rationally, work out which of the possible targets presents the greatest immediate threat (from a non-Muslim POV) and then wallop A, or B or both at once.
Poetic justice for those greedy collaborator human lice who bring sharia into the United States would be for them to get a dose of sharia law themselves, such as:
"before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died."
--from story of Mohammad, acting as judge and jury, torturing to death some alleged criminals. al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261
Eastview,
one source of information is the (repulsive) islamic Finance Project of Harvard University:
http://ifptest.law.harvard.edu/ifphtml/index.php?module=publications
Help stop CAIR’s efforts to stifle free speech!
While following links from the above Youtube clip of Joy Brighton's comments on Sharia finance, I came across the following clip of a Sept 07 GOP at which a Jim Horn was talking about the threat of Islam, making points with which Jihadwatchers will be familiar: true, verifiable and spot on comments. CAIR has only just found the clip and decided to post it, urging viewers to write the organizers objecting to “the virulent attack” and slandering Mr Horn as being part of an anti-Islam “hate group”, when all he is doing is reporting what we know to be the truth of this baleful religion (sorry, “cult”). I chose to write to Ms Sadler instead to *congratulate* her organisation for bringing some home truths to the public.
Can other Jihadwatchers do the same? Help stop yet another attempt by CAIR to block legitimate criticism of Islam’s supremacist doctrines.
Write in support to Ms Sadler at the links below.
The video clip is at http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=DnLAsDOknU8
The CAIR comment on the video clip is:
----------------
(IMPORTANT NOTE: This video is from 2007, but just came to light [Sept 08])
CAIR has located an online video of a virulent attack on Islam and Muslim by a speaker at a convention of the National Federation of Republican Women held in September 2007. The speaker, a leader of an anti-Islam hate group, is applauded loudly as he calls Islam a cult and says terrorists are honest Muslims.
View the video:
ACTION: (As always, be POLITE.)
CONTACT the National Federation of Republican Women to express your concern about the groups promotion of anti-Muslim hate.[NB: remember this is CAIR speaking here, NOT me, Meeker!....]
Ms. Shirley Sadler
President
National Federation of Republican Women
124 N. Alfred Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.548.9688
703.548.9836 (fax)
E-Mail: ssadler@nfrw.org, mail@nfrw.org, meetings@nfrw.org
---------------
Cornelius,
Yes, I can agree with you on that most definitely, but I think the Saudis are far more sinister than the Iranians.
Nothing quite as HOT as a smart woman/person...C-:
Richard,
"sinister"...yes, that adjective is more descriptive of the Saudis than the Iranians.
Let me repeat though, what I said earlier about the Stealth Jihad, not just to you but to all here who would listen...
The Stealth Jihad appears more dangerous (and frustrating) to us because our cultural gate-keepers and our security policies are doing nothing whatsoever to counter it. But in the event there is a dirty bomb or a biological attack on one of our cities, killing thousands and making an entire urban center uninhabitable for years, we will refocus anew on the hard jihad...and footbaths in an airport, as important as that is, will suddenly seem like small potatoes.
Going there,
I suspect that - given our current realities - in the future, non-Sharia-finance will be a small, niche market.
This was a great video, but it really would have helped their case if they had explained what "Islamic charity" means, not just that several have been shut down for funding terrorism. Muslims do not believe in charity beyond feeding someone in your town if they are hungry. "Zakat" does not mean charity. It means "alms for jihad." Muslims believe that whatever misfortunes befall people are, inshallah, their own fault for not being Muslims or for not being good enough Muslims, so the Indonesians, for example, brought the tsunami upon themselves. That's why there has never been a single legitimate Islamic charity and why there never will be. It's not just that a few "Islamic charities" have proven to be sponsoring terrorism. They all have, even if we infidels failed to indict or convict. They were all funding jihad. That's also why all Muslims are terrorists: they all finance terror. "Zakat," the 4th pillar, obligates Muslims to donate 2.5% of their income or $1725 annually to JIHAD, not the poor. Ever wonder why every "Islamic charity" goes to help "Palestinians" who have survived quite well parasitizing us infidels to the extent that they almost never have jobs and are even almost as overweight as Americans?
Download ALMS FOR JIHAD now. Because you can't buy it anywhere (thanks, Saudi Arabia). It also talks about the Ikhwan quite a bit. You need a bittorrent client. I like Azureus.
Also, I don't know what to do if you have mutual funds, but I would urge everyone to get their money into a credit union so as to not enable this kind of evil. You also usually make slightly more interest on your checking account and on CDs, which is nice. Yet another way in which Muslims have made me sound like a wackjob. I now advocate getting your money out of banks. Oh wait, no, banks made that sound sensible by collapsing one after another.
Meeker, thanks for the link to the YouTube video. It is very, very good.