But this money is indeed coming from Western society - and by extension, western taxpayers. We buy Qatar's oil. Without that business, they wouldn't have 50 million laying around to spend on terrorists. As long as the west does business with Islamic oil nations, there will be no end to our financing of terrorism.

We should not import OPEC oil.

http://islam-watch.blogspot.com/

Posted by: thethinker at April 17, 2006 9:10 AM

The Qatarians (Qatarese?) will force the hand of USA. USA will then resume payments to PA to show our displeasure.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at April 17, 2006 9:19 AM

OT, but I was recently engaged in an exchange with a Muslim apologist at another web-forum when this individual branded Robert Spencer as a "hate-monger."

I immediately jumped at the chance to expose this guy as the liar he is. I challenged him to find ONE SINGLE SENTENCE ever written by Robert that advocated hatred towards Muslims.

Of course he disappeared and I've yet to hear back from him.

It's nice to be able to challenge these types with such certainty. Of course, I'm not familiar with every sentence Robert's ever written. Though I read most if not all of what he writes here, I've only read two of his books.

Still, over time you get a sense of the man, of his basic integrity. I had no doubt whatsoever that my interlocutor would come up empty in his search.

So here's to you Robert. Thanks for providing us with such certainty, that we can shoot down those who would defame you with a simple challenge: find the hate.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 17, 2006 9:23 AM

"Staunch U.S. ally Qatar..."
-- the opening of a story in Reuters.

Memo to Reuters, to AP, to Agence France Presse, to all the supposedly unbiased news organizations in the world.

Here is one way to increase Infidel comoprehension of the world: Don't tell your readers. Don't impose a conclusion on them. Don't open a story by calling Qatar "Staunch U.S. ally Qatar." Don't tell us, repeatedly, over the past half century, that "staunch ally Saudi Arabia" is doing such and such to keep oil prices down, or up, or sideways. Don't tell us that "staunch ally Egypt" or "Egypt, one of America's best friends" or "Egypt, America's best friend in the Arab world" or even "Egypt, America's best friend in the Middle East" -- every single one of which I have heard or read within the past few days, and so has everyone else who torments himself by reading or listening to the way the news is presented -- has done this, has done that, against American interests.

Because if one reads that "Egypt, America's staunch ally" has :

1) block any discussion of the behavior of the Sudanese government in Darfur

2) prevented any discussion of effective (i.e. Western) troops going to Darfur

3) been found to have high-ranking officials in the pay of Saddam Hussein

4) has done nothing to prevent the smuggling of arms into Gaza by "Palestinians"

5) has allowed its government-controlled press to publish all kinds of false charges about American soldiers in Iraq

and so on, then in what way is Egypt "America's staunch ally"?

And for that matter, Qatar, the home of Al-Jazeerra, which is subsidized by the Al-Thani who rule Qatar, a family member of which tipped off an Al Qaeda operative about to be arrested by the FBI, so that he could escape, has much the same.

Egypt is an "ally" in the sense that it receives, with so visible sign of gratitude, nearly $2 billion a year from American taxpayers.

Qatar, awash in natural gas, does not receive such aid. But the only sign that it is a "staunch ally" of the United States is the same sign that Kuwait and Dubai, other sheiklets in the area, rich but without military power, have given in allowing American ships to use their ports or in offering the Americans a base.

This is not in Qatar's case, not in Kuwait's case, not in Dubai's case, just as it was not in Saudi Arabia's case, one of being an "ally" or "staunch ally" of the United States. The Saudis wanted Americans there to protect the regime against 1) Saddam Hussein and 2) internal rebellion, as a guarantee for the Al-Saud. That is all. The ruling families -- Al-Thani, Al-Sabah, etc. -- who are willing, temporarily, to allow Americdan soldiers, are doing it for one reason only: to have some guarantee of American protection against the three big bullies in the neighborhood -- Iran, Iraq (if it remains one country), and Saudi Arabia.

And that is the extent of the "staunch ally-hood" of Qatar or the others.

It is outrageous that we are told what to think in the very first sentence.

The Homeric epithet has its uses: grey-eyed Athena, wily Odysseus, rosy-fingered Dawn. It is out of place in news reports. Do not tell us what we should think of Qatar, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. Do not be so free with those fixed, and often wildly misleading epithets.

That is not the duty of mere reporters. We will take in the information, and decide for ourselves if the noun "ally" and the adjective "staunch" apply, or do not apply, to the people or polity being reported on.

We don't need Reuters to feed us its propaganda.

And we can't stand it from anyone else, either.

Posted by: Hugh at April 17, 2006 9:39 AM

I wonder if the other muslim countries will tire of supporting these beggars?

Posted by: freewoman at April 17, 2006 10:28 AM

as long as the donating muslim countries get a monthly body count report(infidels/jews blown up) they will continue support.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at April 17, 2006 11:14 AM

Qatar not a 'friend' of the US?

Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Emir of the State of Qatar and his 'Consort' H.H Sheikha Mouza bint Nasser Al-Misnad traveled to the US in 2004, paying a visit to the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston town.

Under the motto " To Lend a Meaningful Voice" the Energy Forum of the Baker Institute and Rice Universtiy has provided a platform hosting many visitors such as the Qatari Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sheik Hamed Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani, President Bouteflika of Algeria; President Olsegun Obasanjo of Nigeria; President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, former Saudi Energy Minister, Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Algeria's Minister of Energy and Mines, Chakib Khelil, or Qatar's Minister of Energy, Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah;

Welcoming the Emir and his wife to Houston in 2004, James Baker, honorary president of the institute said "the State of Qatar might be small in size and population, but it looms large in both international energy markets and the search for peace and stability in the Gulf."

...Well I guess there must be many millions looming large for the Jim Baker Institute and its founders. An institute that after all in 2005 drafted a (not so voluntary for Israelis ) "working paper" 'creating a roadmap implementation process under United States Leadership', outlining very concrete steps for Israeli withdrawal.

Surely Qatar must've donated USD 50 mn to Hamas in the spirit of peace and stability

Posted by: Hugo Schmidt-Fischer at April 17, 2006 11:46 AM

Yes, isn't this an interesting trend? The jihadist Islamists suddenly start to show their ugly heads one Muslim state at at time. Someone at the State Department should definitely be taking notes.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 17, 2006 12:57 PM

Robert Spencer said

Now if only someone in the State Department would examine the jihad ideology and the Hamas Charter, and realize that states that fund Hamas could not possibly be friends of the United States.

Of course you're right, but if you put that statement together with "Palestinians [Hamas] to get Russian aid", it's kind of starting the day on a depressing note.

The sides are forming up, and we wish we could have had some of the other players on our team. Oh, well, so be it.

Posted by: special_guest at April 17, 2006 1:12 PM

Hugh said

Do not tell us what we should think of Qatar, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. Do not be so free with those fixed, and often wildly misleading epithets.

And these are the same reporters who are so gun-shy about using the term "terrorist", because "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". So a homicide bomber blows himself up in a Tel Aviv falafel stand in order to kill unarmed civilians, and he is a "militant".

And Saudi Arabia, funder of the Wahabist sect, the one that our politicians and media tell us is the only "extremist" form of Islam, is our "staunch ally".

You're right, the media has gone from passively not telling us the true facts, to actively telling us falsehoods.

Posted by: special_guest at April 17, 2006 1:19 PM

What are the most effective means of getting through to the State Department that "they" need to better understand Islamic theology and the serious threat it poses to western civilization? I have e-mailed the department previously and nobody seems to be home. One would think that they must have "highly" paid experts on the matter.

Posted by: map at April 17, 2006 4:28 PM

The american politics in Middle East like the european has been disastrous, it´s time to change the brain.

Posted by: Franze at April 17, 2006 5:22 PM

The ruling families -- Al-Thani, Al-Sabah, etc. -- who are willing, temporarily, to allow Americdan soldiers, are doing it for one reason only: to have some guarantee of American protection against the three big bullies in the neighborhood -- Iran, Iraq (if it remains one country), and Saudi Arabia. Posted by: Hugh

If Saudi Arabia is a "staunch ally" in the same sense that Qatar, or UAE, or Oman is, why bother whether or not Saudi Arabia conquers these Sheikhdoms/Sultanates or not? Either way, the US will get the oil, and as for the bases, it's not critical. The US could either have aircraft carriers in the Gulf, or better and safer still, off the Mediterranean coast off Israel. It's not like Qatar provides the US a contiguous path whence tanks can roll directly into Iran or Iraq.

The only difference it could make is that in the UAE, Oman and Bahrein, the life of those infidels either greedy or stupid enough to work there will be made miserable if KSA takes over, since practice of any infidel religion has to be done discretely (identical to dissident meetings in the ex Soviet Bloc). But for Qatar, which is a Wahabi regime in its own right, it won't make a difference, except the al-Thani sheikhs won't be ruling a sovereign country. Big deal.

Let the Saudis conquer the entire peninsula. It's not like there is any acceptable regime that is genuinely pluralistic enough to make it worth defending by Infidels.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 17, 2006 7:34 PM

Feel free to delete this as self-serving, but I consider these issues so important I've written a book about them.

The rules by which we cannot even intimate hate, as in defending Robert for not ever having made a single hateful remark, and they can yell death to the infidel, is loaded against us.

Our need for purity on this account is particular to our cultural heritage. It is also tied up with appropriate guilt over racism. But it hems us down completely when we cannot talk about basic truths.

To solve this I have written a book called culturism. It allows us to discuss culture as clearly distinct from race in a rational way. Should we discriminate based on race? No way. Should we discriminate based on culture? We need to to survive. Islam is not friendly to us. We cannot treat them like British believers in parliamentary government. Ask a Dane, culture is important.

I have a chance to talk about my book, and such issues, on television. To spread the sorts of views being discussed here, vote for me to be on tv at www.bookmillionaire.com

Thanks, John Press
www.pressjohn.com
pressjohn@hotmail.com

Posted by: jkp at April 17, 2006 10:01 PM

let muslims states use the money to that bottom less pit,,its better than putting it in the west where it will grow with economies that actually work! someone said dont buy opec oil, that is not the problem, if we dont, china,etc will buy it. we just need to find other oil reserves, and find ways to better, cheaper energy, that would make oil obsolette

Posted by: Lulu at April 18, 2006 2:50 AM

In the circle of life it seems that we here in the U.S. become pawns on a chess board awaiting the next move...we should become aggressive to this ideology with anyone who obliges it in the least bit. We are funding our own demise.

Posted by: chuck at April 18, 2006 6:12 AM

UAE ports deal, anyone?

Posted by: Badge 2211 at April 18, 2006 7:11 AM

LuLu:

let muslims states use the money to that bottom less pit,,its better than putting it in the west where it will grow with economies that actually work! someone said dont buy opec oil, that is not the problem, if we dont, china,etc will buy it. we just need to find other oil reserves, and find ways to better, cheaper energy, that would make oil obsolette

Yep, plus let the world know who wants to sponsor terrorism in the(now).

Posted by: Denver at April 18, 2006 11:40 AM

Yes, Hugo, we really should be concerned over all those dollar bills looming over poor Jim Baker in Texas. What would happen if those dollar bills actually fell down to earth and crushed poor Jim, or even overwhelmed him? I shudder at the thought.

Posted by: Eliyahu at April 19, 2006 4:15 PM