Ties That Bind, Part 3

We continue now from Part 2.

With these next three excerpts, we conclude with Bush, the Saudi billionaire and the Islamists: the story a British firm is afraid to publish:

What Unger describes in his book is the kind of exploitation of oil-rich Saudis which has often been linked to US and British politicians in the last 30 years.

Mr Bin Mahfouz points out that he neither personally funded Harken nor paid anybody else to do so. On the other alleged business links, his lawyers, Kendall Freeman, say he "does not propose to comment".

But what gives the book a controversial edge is the linking of this phenomenon with the financing of terrorism. Unger accuses Mr Bin Mahfouz of making donations to Osama bin Laden.

Mr Bin Mahfouz has an answer to this: he says Osama's brother, Salem, asked him in 1988 to hand over $270,000 (£150,000) to Osama's cause. He believed it was going to Afghanistan. At that time, as he accurately says, this was entirely in line with US foreign policy.

And it was! At the time, the US was working closely with Pakistan's ISI supporting the mujahideen in the jihad against the Soviet Union, and Osama bin Laden was a leader/organizer for the mujahideen.

Of course, it makes us wonder to what extent Osama bin Laden is the "black sheep" of the bin Laden family, or at least at what point Osama's politics became disavowed among the bin Ladens.

"This donation was to assist the US-sponsored resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and was never intended nor, to the best of Sheikh Khalid's knowledge, ever used to fund any 'extension' of that resistance movement in other countries."

Similarly, Mr Bin Mahfouz has an answer to Unger's repetition of the charge, based on more recent allegations by US Treasury officials, that officials of Muwafaq, an international Islamic charity launched in 1991 by Mr Bin Mahfouz, went on to funnel money to al-Qaida. He was unaware of this, he says, and has appointed lawyers to investigate Muwafaq.

As far as his own National Commercial Bank (NCB) is concerned, Mr Bin Mahfouz's lawyer says: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them. At no time did Khalid Bin Mahfouz have any knowledge or reason to believe that members of the Saudi royal family were transferring funds to Muslim charities that were sending funds to al-Qaida."

That I find a little hard to believe.

Another of Unger's points is that Saleh Idris, the owner of the alleged al-Qaida Sudan pharmaceutical factory bombed by the US in 1998, was an associate of Mr Bin Mahfouz, being deputy manager of the NCB.

Mr Bin Mahfouz's response is: "The Clinton administration initially claimed that the plant was financed by Bin Laden based upon the mistaken assumption that it was owned by a Sudanese government corporation. This was withdrawn after it was discovered that it was privately owned by Mr Idris. The administration then accused Mr Idris of association with terrorism and froze his assets. But the US declined to defend this claim in a legal action brought by Mr Idris and released his assets. The international press has been virtually uniform in its conclusion that the bombing of the El-Shifa plant was a mistake."

Had the US perhaps made a mistake going after that factory? Perhaps faulty intelligence? If so, it wouldn't be the first time.

In any case, the connections between Sheikh bin Mahfouz and terrorism go far beyond the little bit in this post. You hopefully are familiar with the contents of Part 1 and Part 2, as well as with the Ehrenfeld case in general (see the links in the sidebar and please visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website).

In particular, the point from these posts centers, on the one hand, on the ties between Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and terrorists, and, on the other hand, between Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and US President George W. Bush. Sheikh bin Mahfouz is just a middleman with ties to both Osama bin Laden and President Bush.

Beyond that, even if you take Sheikh bin Mahfouz out of the equation, there are other ties between Bush and bin Laden -- the names change, but these two are removed from each other by just one changing name.

In general, the ties between President Bush and the Saudis run very deep, as do the ties between the Saudis and Islamic terrorism.

With that thought in mind, let us now review an article written by Douglas Farah, entitled Saudi Arabia's Terror Finance Problem, also found at Family Security Matters (see the originals for links which I did not reproduce).

There is little willingness to tackle the Saudis anymore on the issue of cracking down on terror finance. Intelligence services here and in Europe know most of the money for the mujahadeed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere still come from wealthy donors in the Kingdom.

Only a handful of officials, however, dare to say so publicly anymore for fear of ruffling the feathers of those who keep our gas prices above $3 a gallon and will not allow a Bible, Torah or any other non-Muslim book into their country.

The exception has been Stuart Levey, the Treasury undersecretary for terror finance issues, who recently and publicly took on the Saudis in little-noted Congressional testimony. Fortunately, the LA Times did notice.

"Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world," Levey said under questioning.

U.S. officials have previously identified Saudi Arabia as a major source of funding for extremism. But Levey’s comments were notable because, although reluctant to directly criticize a close U.S. ally, he acknowledged frustration with administration efforts to persuade the Saudis and others to act.

"We continue to face significant challenges as we move forward with these efforts, including fostering and maintaining the political will among other governments to take effective and consistent action," Levey said, later adding: "Our work is not nearly complete."

One of the more interesting parts of the story, however, is not just what Stuart said, but the Saudi recognition that he was right, and that, in essence, the Saudi government has repeatedly lied to the U.S. government over the steps the Kingdom has taken to crack down.

For example more than two years ago, the Saudis assured then-Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) that the Kingdom, as promised in 2003, had set up a financial intelligence unit and a commission to oversee the financial dealings of charities, many which have had ties to funding terrorist activities.

Now, Saudi spokesman Nail Jubeir (brother of ambassador Adel Jubeir) "confirmed that Saudi Arabia has not set up the financial intelligence unit or charity commission, but said it was cracking down on the financiers of terrorism in other ways, such as making it illegal for anyone to send money outside the kingdom 'without going through official government channels.'"

An interesting look at how worthwhile the written assurances from the royal family are, as they had been given repeatedly on those two precise issues.

But the larger issue, to me, is the one expressed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore), the Saudi failures mean that Americans who pay more than $100 a barrel for oil are in effect bankrolling extremism because wealthy Saudis “back-door” their profits into charities that fund extremist causes.

There it is in a nutshell. Our money pays for them to pay those who want to kill us. The irony is hard to laugh at.

It's not just our money via oil, though, that ultimately pays for all this terrorism; recall what Sibel Edmonds said:

Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?, an interview with Amy Goodman, 2005

Sibel Edmonds: [snip] They are not speaking about the link between the narcotics and al Qaeda. Yes, we are hearing about them coming down on some charities as the real funds behind al Qaeda, but most of al Qaeda's funding is not through these charity organizations. It's through narcotics. And have you heard anything to this date, anything about these issues which we have had information since 1997? And as I would again emphasize, we are talking about countries. And they are blocking this information, and also the fact that certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security, be it the Department of State or certain elected officials.

And now you see why Bush is so eager to allow his friends the Saudis to buy up America.

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Three by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004

CD: What are they so afraid of?

SE: They're afraid of information, of the truth coming out, and accountability -- the whole accountability issue that will arise. But it's not as complicated as it might seem. If they were to allow the whole picture to emerge, it would just boil down to a whole lot of money and illegal activities.

CD: Hmm, well I know you can't name names, but can you tell me if any specific officials will suffer if your testimony comes out?

SE: Yes. Certain elected officials will stand trial and go to prison.

We have the best military in the world, but they can't seem to defeat Al Qaeda. Six and a half years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large. And we are being told this war will not end any time soon.

And, now you know why.

CNN EVANS, NOVAK, HUNT & SHIELDS: Interview With General Richard Myers April 6, 2002

HUNT: The Big Question for General Myers: One embarrassment for the U.S. has been that, in almost seven months after 9/11, we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden. With the apprehension this week of one of his top lieutenants, have we gotten enough information to be any closer to maybe finally getting bin Laden?

MYERS: Well, if you remember, if we go back to the beginning of this segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden. Obviously, that's desirable.

"If you got a fire and you can't put it out
got a Bushfire"

Riding on the Backs of Americans

There's an interesting article that appeared by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen in The Washington Times in March. It is entitled Burning the candle at both ends, and can also be found at Dr. Ehrenfeld's website (which I encourage you to visit). I review it here in its entirety with some comments interspersed.

With the U.S. economy "obviously going through a tough time," America should welcome capital investments even from foreign sovereign wealth funds, President George W. Bush asserted on March 14, 2008 at New York's Economic Club.

"It's our money to begin with," he added, referring to roughly $95 trillion in OPEC holdings of U.S. dollars and investments accumulated largely through oil sales. Contending that we can "protect our people against investments that jeopardize our national security," Mr. Bush added, "Seems like we ought to let it come back." But President Bush is ignoring some basic principles of U.S. capitalism and democracy: personal and corporate ownership rights are nearly sacrosanct.

President Bush has a well-established habit of ignoring whatever truths are inconvenient for him.

$95 trillion in OPEC holdings of U.S. dollars and investments -- wow!

Dollars may be "coming back," but they do so with strings attached, giving foreigners huge leverage and control over the U.S. currency and economy. Of the world's 86 million barrels in daily crude oil output, the Middle East produces only 25.6 percent. With escalating prices, crude oil now runs $111 per barrel, putting $2.4 billion daily in Middle East pockets.

Before you continue reading this article, I would like you to consider a quote from another, different article, on a different -- but related? -- topic:

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

Back to Ehrenfeld and Lappen:

Unlike President Bush, market observers don't think we can burn the candle at both ends. Legendary investor and Vanguard Group founder John Bogle blasted the "orgy of speculation" that granted foreign investors excessive influence over the U.S. economy. "We should have never let ourselves get into this position where so many dollars are ... held by foreign countries and bought by foreign countries that are enemies," he stated also on March 14. "Friend or enemy, they have a lot of control over what happens here," he said.

Money buys influence -- money buys control.

Who owns the place where you work? Who owns the place where you live?

Even if you own your own home and your own business -- are you paying back loans that you used to buy them? Who are the investors in the bank where you got those loans?

Who are the investors in the financial institutions that have issued your credit cards?

The US government is roughly $9,000,000,000,000 in debt.

Who owns this money?

Some of it is owned by middle America -- people who have invested in pension and retirement funds... but, who are middle America's partners?

Indeed, major Middle East oil producers have a different understanding than Americans of economics and ownership. The October 2006 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) "Mecca Declaration" is but one, albeit pointed example of this fundamental difference. Islam views all property owned by Muslims as held "in trust for Allah." The Qur'an decrees, "The land belongs to Allah, He gives it as a heritage to those of His devotees whom He pleases" (15:128). Therefore, Muslim property "shall be subject to the terms and conditions established by their owners." While OPEC and the Saudis blame the Bush administration for high oil prices, by "mismanaging" the U.S. economy, in fact OPEC policies cause the escalation.

In the case of your credit card debt, the terms and conditions basically read that the bank can change its terms and conditions whenever and however it wants to.

Or, do you have a different take on the fine print?

In a significant indication of brazen Saudi determination to undermine the U.S. and Western economies with petrodollars, King Abdullah rebuffed President Bush's recent appeal to boost production and lower prices.

"I would hope, as OPEC considers different production levels, that they understand that if... one of their biggest consumers' economy suffers, it will mean less purchases, less gas and oil sold," the President pleaded. Without hesitating, however, Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi responded, "We will raise production when the market justifies it." Considering the effects on U.S. markets, the Saudi strategy should be recognized as economic warfare.

Saudi Arabia is unable to significantly raise production of oil.

Oil production in the Kingdom comes mainly from fields that have been in service for decades. To maintain current production, they are having to pump water down on the peripheries of the oil fields in order to maintain pressure in the center. Not only are the Saudis unable to significantly increase production, but there is a question as to how long they can maintain production at current levels.

A comment left on a thread entitled Bringing the OPEC production numbers per well up to date gives us an insight:

There seems to be another factor that is almost impossible to read from the outside: Water.
First, is the amount of oil per well before or after Gas Oil Seperation Plant (GOSP), that is, discounting the water and associated gas that passes through the well head but then has to seperated by GOSP?

Secondly, water injected. If there has been any educational benefit to us all, (even those who do not accpet the overall premise) of Matthew Simmons' book, "Twilight In The Desert, The Coming Saudi Oil Shock And The World Economy", it is to point up just how wide a band production of an oil field can be manipulated by varying the amount of the water injected.

Allow me to quote a fascinating excerpt from the book itself, these remarks regarding the "Berri" oil field, one of the "royal four" super giant fields in all of Saudi Arabia,

"Following production startup, the high initial reservoir pressure went into rapid decline, falling from almost 4,000 psi in 1970 to 2,600 psi in 1973. At this rate of descent, the reservior would have reached bubble point pressure within two years. To prevent this, a peripheral water-injection program was began in 1975.
The water-injection program enabled a significant increase in production at Berri:
*Prior to water injection,Berri produced 155,000 barrels a day in 1973 and 300,000 in 1972.
*After water injection began, production rose to 800,000 barrels a day, in 1976." (Simmons)

Note the spread: 300,000 to 800,000 barrels a day!
With water injection, the pressure was driven back up, so the need for extra wells was reduced greatly. Each well could still produce at full output on the retention of very high reservior pressure. A "well count" would have been completely useless in explaining the status and the health of the Berri field.

To demonstrate this, and to sound the sad warning, let us just go ahead and finish the paragraph from which the above quotes and numbers were cited:

"In 1977, less than two years after the start of the injection program, water began to break through in the first row of producing wells nearest the flood front. Initially, the completions in the wet zone were plugged off, and the wells were recompleted in drier zones higher up the wellbore. A moderate amount of water production could be tolerated in each well once wet crude handling facilities were installed at the Berri Gas & Oil Seperating Plant (GOSP) For some time therafter, the typical water cuts stayed around 20 percent, although the flood front was advancing rapidly to the crestal area."(Simmons)

Now you see why I stressed the "before or after "GOSP" issue. This is not some minimal thing, of only a few percent. Notice that in this case A FULL FIFTH of the oil passing through the wellhead would have been water, and had to be shaved off in the GOSP (!!) Some say the water cut in many mature Saudi fields may be as high as one third now, or 33%.

Let us close with the obituary for a peaked and declining field: "The available record of Berri's production history contains the following benchmarks:
*In 1976, Berri's output peaked at 800,000 barrels per day and then began to decline rapidly.
*By 1981, when Saudi Arabia's overall oil output peaked, Berri's production had already fallen by 30 percent.
By 1990, 25 percent of Berri's producing wells had totally watered out, choking off the oil flow and forcing Saudi Aramco to shut in the wells." (Simmons)

That folks is what "peak" and "oil depletion" really look like out at ground level, in the oil fields. The above is certainly being played out all over the middle east and the world at this moment. Witness, the recent adjusting of water injection and drilling volume of the "Burgen" field in Kuwait, in which in a matter of months, the output was "adjusted" by first, 5%, then 10%, the 20%, before Kuwait Oil Company announced that Bergen was peaked, and would never again deliver more than 80% of it's former top production, and all indications is the production will continue to drop, and if known history of peaked fields holds true, the decline will accelerate quickly. Now recall, this is the second largest field in the world, behind only Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.
Water injection boosts reservior pressure and greatly boosts production from a given set of wells. It also reduces the warning time to nearly none, as peak nears.

Some say that the issue of oil depletion in general, and Matthew Simmons book in particular are too complicated and hard to understand.
Sadly, it is all too easy to understand.

Continuing with Ehrenfeld and Lappen:

Despite protracted violence against the United States, West and Israel since 1979, only the September 11 attacks forced America to recognize the Islamic holy war (jihad) waged by al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

What will it take for the United States to recognize the far more dangerous and important part of that jihadeconomic warfare (financial jihad, or al-jihad bi-al-mal) -- which the Saudis and Gulf States now aggressively also pursue? Shari'a mandates that Muslims fund jihad: Qur'an 61:10-11, "strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives...." And Qur'an 49:15, "(true) believers are only those who...strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah." "Financial Jihad [is] … more important ... than self-sacrificing," says Saudi Islamic cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.

This open economic warfare, however, has effected U.S. economic or foreign policies, much less media coverage or presidential election campaigns or debates.

While the U.S. currency weakens and Saudi and Gulf interests continue their binge buying of strategic U.S. assets and financial institutions, their petrodollars lure more and more ignorant, and even desperate American bankers and investors into the purported glimmer of shari'a banking -- a gold-plated Islamic money pit.

The president and his economic advisors should heed Jack Bogle. Without emergency measures to redirect U.S. economic policy and market regulations, the petrodollar- and shari'a-driven takeover of America will indeed endanger national and global security.

To put this into perspective, let me reproduce the following from a little box in the corner of Bringing the OPEC production numbers per well up to date:

"My father rode a camel.
I drive a car.
My son flies a jet-plane.
His son will ride a camel."
—Saudi saying

"His son will ride a camel." Perhaps not.

If the Saudis play their cards right, by the time their oil runs out (which could be any day now!) their sons -- together with the sons of their friends in high places here in the US -- might find themselves riding on the backs of Americans via our debt-based economy.

I leave you now with another quote from that other different article, on that different (but related?) topic, a quote which puts into perspective why President Bush is so eager for investment of Saudi petrodollars in the American economy:

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

Bribery, Blackmail, and the Big Kahunas

I get so wrapped up in our scandals on this side of the pond, that I lose sight of the scandals on the other side of the pond. Thanks to an email tipster, though, we have the following information about a Sibel Edmonds-type case in the UK.

From Blair used 'irresistible pressure' to halt investigation into BAE-Saudi arms deal by Robert Verkaik, Law Editor, Friday, 15 February 2008:

Tony Blair wrongly influenced due legal process when he used "irresistible pressure" to end the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into alleged bribery and corruption involving arms deals between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia, it was alleged in the High Court yesterday.

When he was Prime Minister, Mr Blair "stepped over the boundaries of what was permissible" and interfered in the highly sensitive criminal investigation because of threats by the Saudis, said the barrister representing two anti-corruption campaign groups challenging the decision to drop the case.

Our "ally" in the "War on Terror" is threatening the UK -- this is good!

The High Court challenge centres on the decision in December 2006, announced by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, to end the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk jets and other military equipment.

At the time, the Government had used arguments about national security to justify the decision.

This is the part that resembles the Sibel Edmonds case.

Dinah Rose QC, appearing yesterday for Corner House Research, which campaigns against corruption in international trade, and the Campaign Against Arms, said the real reason for dropping the investigation "was not national security but the commercial situation" and the decision violated the OECD's convention on combatting bribery. The decision was also based on "tainted advice" and was unlawful because the director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) had permitted threats, or blackmail, to influence his decision.

Ms Rose said it was taken after renewed threats by the Saudi Arabian royal family that if the investigation continued the Saudis would cancel a proposed order for Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and withdraw all security and intelligence co-operation with the British Government.

The Saudis would withdraw their assistance in the "War on Terror" -- no big loss? On the contrary, the best thing that could happen for us would be for the Saudis to withdraw their "security and intelligence co-operation" from the "War on Terror" -- after all, the main beneficiaries of their assistance are the terrorists!

She told Lord Justice Moses, sitting with Mr Justice Sullivan at the High Court in London: "These threats were apparently made following BAE's discovery that the SFO was about to obtain access to details of various Swiss bank accounts."

As an aside, Congress periodically holds hearings into corruption in international banking; one such hearing from about a year ago was entitled Offshore Banking, Corruption, and the War on Terrorism, from 03/29/2006. Check it out.

Back to our article:

In a note disclosed to the court, the SFO's assistant director, Helen Garlick, recorded a meeting at which the Attorney General asked for the director's opinion days before the decision was taken to stop the investigation. Ms Garlick said the Attorney General had also asked for her advice, and she described attending a meeting at the Foreign Office where "we had been told that 'British lives on British streets' were at risk". Ms Garlick stated: "If this caused another 7/7 [bomb attacks on London on 7 July 2005] how could we say that our investigation, which at this stage might or might not result in a successful prosecution, was more important?"

In court, Philip Sales QC, appearing for the SFO, said the director had "no choice" but to stop the investigation on national security grounds. He told the judges that the threat from the Saudis "could not be obviated sensibly by other means".

Lord Justice Moses suggested that, in reality, the Saudi threat involved saying that Britain would not be told if the Saudis learnt that someone was going to "blow you up". Mr Sales said the threat of withdrawal of co-operation went wider.

He said the Government had decided that stopping the investigation "was of critical importance to our national security in the light of the Islamist terrorist threat".

"There was no other viable choice available to the director other than to accept, with very great reluctance, that the investigation should be stopped."

In the Sibel Edmonds case, government officials used national security as a reason to gag Edmonds and shut down a case that in fact centered on the criminal conduct of government officials. It involved the arms trade, and many other things, including narcotics and money laundering.

Here we are being told that the UK basically chickened out, afraid that the investigation would have an effect similar to a Mohammed cartoon -- provoking terrorism. I would bet, however, that if the investigation were to continue, we would find a situation similar to the Sibel Edmonds case. In fact, I would bet that it eventually hooks up to some of the same people. The Brits are probably taking their bribes from many of the same players that are bribing our Congressman and State and Defense Department officials.

Lord Justice Moses said that no one could take issue with the decision if there was a threat of "imminent harm". But, if it was less than that, there was then the difficulty that "any villain" could take advantage of the tense situation.

In reply to the judge's observation that nothing appeared to have been done by the Government to find an alternative way of overcoming the threat, Mr Sales said: "You don't have full sight of the underlying material." Mr Sales said this was an issue raised by the judge himself and he had not been given the chance to prepare to meet it.

The hearing continues.

Another article gives more background. BAE: secret papers reveal threats from Saudi prince Spectre of 'another 7/7' led Tony Blair to block bribes inquiry, high court told; David Leigh and Rob Evans The Guardian, Friday February 15, 2008:

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Remember that these Saudi leaders are best buddies with Bush and Blair.

Never forget that.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

What is the penalty for such conduct in Saudi Arabia? Would they cut off this guy's hand? Or, would it be the death penalty for treason?

Or, would it be okay, because the conduct benefits Muslims?

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The Blair legacy is not going to be good. Corruption, cowardice, incompetence....

What's Bush's legacy going to be? Remember, the Sibel Edmonds case is out there....

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have "rolled over" after the threats. He said one possible view was that it was "just as if a gun had been held to the head" of the government.

Our "allies" in the "War on Terror" -- the Saudis. Never forget that.

The SFO investigation began in 2004, when Robert Wardle, its director, studied evidence unearthed by the Guardian. This revealed that massive secret payments were going from BAE to Saudi Arabian princes, to promote arms deals.

This part is also very reminiscent of the Sibel Edmonds case -- kickbacks to close arms deals.

Yesterday, anti-corruption campaigners began a legal action to overturn the decision to halt the case. They want the original investigation restarted, arguing the government had caved into blackmail.

Meanwhile, the Sibel Edmonds case languishes over here. At least some people somewhere in the UK have the guts to continue pressing this publicly.

The judge said he was surprised the government had not tried to persuade the Saudis to withdraw their threats. He said: "If that happened in our jurisdiction [the UK], they would have been guilty of a criminal offence". Counsel for the claimants said it would amount to perverting the course of justice.

Maybe you can grab them Saudi princes and send them to Guantanamo for some waterboarding.

Surf's up, Big Kahuna!

Wardle told the court in a witness statement: "The idea of discontinuing the investigation went against my every instinct as a prosecutor. I wanted to see where the evidence led."

But a paper trail set out in court showed that days after Bandar flew to London to lobby the government, Blair had written to the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and the SFO was pressed to halt its investigation.

The case officer on the inquiry, Matthew Cowie, was described by the judge as "a complete hero" for standing up to pressure from BAE's lawyers, who went behind his back and tried to secretly lobby the attorney general to step in at an early stage and halt the investigations.

The campaigners argued yesterday that when BAE failed at its first attempt to stop the case, it changed tactics. Having argued it should not be investigated in order to promote arms sales, it then recruited ministers and their Saudi associates to make the case that "national security" demanded the case be covered up.

Moses said that after BAE's commercial arguments failed, "Lo and behold, the next thing there is a threat to national security!" Dinah Rose, counsel for the Corner House and the Campaign against the Arms Trade, said: "Yes, they start to think of a different way of putting it." Moses responded: "That's very unkind!"

The treasonous conduct of BAE is the threat to the UK's national security -- parallel to the Sibel Edmonds case.

Documents seen yesterday also show the SFO warned the attorney general that if he dropped the case, it was likely it would be taken up by the Swiss and the US. These predictions proved accurate.

They need to coordinate their corruption across the pond. They should have offered them a deal: "You shut up about this, and we'll shut up about Sibel Edmonds." Heh.

Bandar's payments were published in the Guardian and Switzerland subsequently launched a money-laundering inquiry into the Saudi arms deal. The US department of justice has launched its own investigation under the foreign corrupt practices act into the British money received in the US by Bandar while he was ambassador to Washington.

Prince Bandar yesterday did not contest a US court order preventing him from taking the proceeds of property sales out of the country. The order will stay in place until a lawsuit brought by a group of BAE shareholders is decided. The group alleges that BAE made £1bn of "illegal bribe payments" to Bandar while claiming to be a "highly ethical, law-abiding corporation".

U.S. legal proceedings that will impact the Saudis beyond our borders: Libel Terrorism in Reverse -- I love it!

Enter the Dragon

We begin with some excerpts from PAKISTAN - The Saudi Factor, dated August 9, 2004:

A report in The Financial Times on Aug. 5 recalled that, a week before Pakistan's maiden nuclear tests in May 1998, then Premier Nawaz Sharif received a late night telephone call from a Saudi prince. India, Pakistan's arch-rival, had conducted nuclear tests that month and Sharif was weighing the consequences of following suit. As Sharif told a hurriedly organised meeting of senior officials, the Saudi prince had offered to provide up to 50,000 b/d of oil to Pakistan for an indefinite period and on deferred payment terms. This would allow Pakistan to overcome the impact of punitive Western sanctions expected to follow the tests.

The FT reported a former aide to Sharif as saying the message from Saudi Arabia, delivered on behalf of Crown Prince Abdullah, the de-facto ruler, had once again bailed out Pakistan at one of the most difficult moments in its history. The FT quoted the same former aide as adding: "It is possible that Pakistan may still have conducted its nuclear tests without the Saudi oil. But the tests would have been done with the knowledge that the economic fallout was going to be far more severe".

The telephone call illustrated the intimacy between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a relationship that receives little international attention but has so far proved, for both sides, probably more profound and secure than any other. A year after the tests, Prince Sultan, the Saudi defence minister, visited the uranium enrichment and missile assembly plant at Kahuta, then run by the now disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul-Qadeer Khan. He thus became the first foreign official known to have visited a Pakistani nuclear research facility.

Saudi financial support has fuelled suspicions of nuclear co-operation between the two countries. The FT quoted a "senior US official" as saying Saudi finance helped fund Pakistan's nuclear programme, allowing it among other things to buy nuclear technology from China. But the FT added: "Officials discount the possibility of Pakistani help to build an indigenous Saudi nuclear weapon: Saudi Arabia does not appear to have the necessary technical infrastructure. But they say there could be a sort of 'lend-lease arrangement' that would allow weapons from Pakistan to be made available to Saudi Arabia". The paper quoted the US official as saying: "The argument that they (Saudis) have options on Pakistan's arsenal are more likely".

Saudi Arabia may have available to it Pakistani bombs!

Here we have an excerpt from Chapter 2 of the Cox Report, which is the unclassified version of a report by the House Select Committee that investigated during the Clinton years Communist Chinese espionage in the United States:

The PRC's nuclear weapons intelligence collection efforts began after the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976, when the PRC assessed its weaknesses in physics and the deteriorating status of its nuclear weapons programs.

The PRC's warhead designs of the late 1970s were large, multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons that could only be carried on large ballistic missiles and aircraft. The PRC's warheads were roughly equivalent to U.S. warheads designed in the 1950s. The PRC may have decided as early as that time to pursue more advanced thermonuclear warheads for its new generation of ballistic missiles.

The PRC's twenty-year intelligence collection effort against the U.S. has been aimed at this goal. The PRC employs a "mosaic" approach that capitalizes on the collection of small bits of information by a large number of individuals, which is then pieced together in the PRC. This information is obtained through espionage, rigorous review of U.S. unclassified technical and academic publications, and extensive interaction with U.S. scientists and Department of Energy laboratories.

The nice thing about the "mosaic" approach is that the information could be immediately marketable in the right hands; what you learn, though perhaps not useful to you, might be exactly what somebody else wants to know, and providing it might be very profitable.

The trouble is to find a middleman.

In that context, it is chilling to recall the information from Libyan Arms Designs Traced Back to China, which was presented in The Islamic Bomb, Part 4:

U.S. intelligence officials concluded years ago that China provided early assistance to Pakistan in building its first nuclear weapon -- assistance that appeared to have ended in the 1980s. Still, weapons experts familiar with the blueprints expressed surprise at what they described as a wholesale transfer of sensitive nuclear technology to another country. Notes included in the package of documents suggest that China continued to mentor Pakistani scientists on the finer points of bomb-building over a period of several years, the officials said.

China continues to tutor Pakistani scientists on bomb-building.

Skipping ahead now with another excerpt from Chapter 2 of the Cox Report (emphasis in original):

The PRC stole classified information on every currently deployed U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The warheads for which the PRC stole classified information include: the W-56 Minuteman II ICBM; the W-62 Minuteman III ICBM; the W-70 Lance short-range ballistic missile (SRBM); the W-76 Trident C-4 SLBM; the W-78 Minuteman III Mark 12A ICBM; the W-87 Peacekeeper ICBM; and the W-88 Trident D-5 SLBM. The W-88 warhead is the most sophisticated strategic nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. It is deployed on the Trident D-5 submarine-launched missile.

Skipping back now with another excerpt from Chapter 2 of the Cox Report:

The Select Committee judges that the PRC's intelligence collection efforts to develop modern thermonuclear warheads are focused primarily on the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

As a result of these efforts, the PRC has stolen classified U.S. thermonuclear design information that helped it fabricate and successfully test a new generation of strategic warheads.

Returning now to another excerpt from PAKISTAN - The Saudi Factor (I adjusted the punctuation, inserting the dashes, to make it more readable):

So far, there is no suggestion that Saudi Arabia purchased nuclear equipment or expertise from the Khan network. But the network's ability to outsource important elements of a nuclear weapons programme would make it easier for any country -- even one without much technical infrastructure -- to start weapons development.

"To be sure", the FT said, "Saudi Arabia has plenty of reasons and the financial muscle to seek nuclear weapons. Saudis live in a dangerous environment, surrounded by rivals. They include Israel, whose undeclared nuclear arsenal Saudi Arabia criticises as the main block to a nuclear-free Middle East, and Iran, Saudi Arabia's strategic competitor suspected by western governments of developing nuclear weapons". The FT recalled that, in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein was considered a close friend of Saudi Arabia, "Iraq's military strength was seen as protection for the Sunni Muslim monarchies of the Gulf against the ambitions of a revolutionary Shia regime in Iran". After Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, however, Iraq became the main threat in the Gulf and the Saudis called on the US for protection.

It is not assessed that Saudi Arabia is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program, but the Saudis do have reason to want nukes, and may have options on Pakistani nuclear weapons, which the Saudis helped pay for.

Recall now the quote from the hearing held by the 109th Congress on Thursday, May 25, 2006, entitled THE A.Q. KHAN NETWORK: CASE CLOSED?, quoted in The Islamic Bomb, Part 1 (the BBC China was the ship that was transporting the smuggled material):

Four months after the BBC China was interdicted, Khan appeared on Pakistani television, and on that show he apologized. The following day, President Musharraf apparently felt compelled to call Khan a national hero. Or does he believe that? I wonder.

[snip]

Khan claims to have acted without Pakistani Government support, yet former Pakistani President Zia spoke about acquiring and sharing nuclear technology, in his words, with the entire Islamic world. Khan advanced Zia's mission well. Some of Khan's exports were transported by Pakistani military aircraft. Many ask how can the network aggressively market its nuclear products, including the glossy brochures, without Pakistan's Government taking notice?

Recall also the quote from Pakistan Nuclear Security Questioned by Joby Warrick, which was reproduced in The Islamic Bomb, Part 3:

When the United States learned in 2001 that Pakistani scientists had shared nuclear secrets with members of al-Qaeda, an alarmed Bush administration responded with tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment such as intrusion detectors and ID systems to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

For emphasis, I again present the image shown in the previous post. The caption at the bottom reads: The PRC has stolen classified information on every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ICBM arsenal.



How much of that stolen information about U.S. thermonuclear warhead design has made it to Pakistan?

How much has made it beyond Pakistan, perhaps to someone in Saudi Arabia, or perhaps even to Al Qaeda?

As Bad As It Gets

Here's one for my visitors from the UK -- Visiting Saudi king accuses Britain of terror failures:

LONDON (AFP) - Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah accused Britain of not taking terrorism seriously enough Monday, hours before arriving in London for a controversial state visit.

BWA-ha-ha-ha...!

In a BBC interview prior to his arrival, the king said his country had given Britain information which could have prevented the 2005 London suicide bombings, in which 52 innocent people died, but the authorities had failed to act on it.

I wonder if that could be true?

The king, the first Saudi monarch in 20 years to visit Britain, will be met by heir to the throne Prince Charles and will stay at Buckingham Palace, Queen Elizabeth II's home in the capital.

His visit has already stirred up criticism from politicians and protestors who allege human rights abuses and corruption in Saudi Arabia.

Asked about the terrorist threat, the king told the BBC through an interpreter: "I believe most countries are not taking this issue too seriously including, unfortunately, Great Britain.

"We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy."

He said that Al Qaeda had not been defeated in Saudi Arabia, adding: "I believe strongly...that it will take 20 to 30 years to defeat the scourge of terrorism with vigilant effort.

A good way to start is to tell your mullahs to stop teaching everybody to hate the brothers (and sisters) of apes and pigs.

(That comment is for both the UK and the KSA.)

"I strongly urge all countries in the world including Great Britain to take the matter of fighting terrorism very, very seriously and to combat terrorism day and night with robustness and vigilance."

I strongly urge the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to either 1) allow religious freedom for people in the Kingdom, or 2) curtail the freedom of those who preach hatred.

As it is, if you bow to Mecca and call for the deaths of kuffar, your speech is acceptable, but if you carry a cross and ask for peace and love, you're taking your life into your hands there.

Come to think of it, if you bow to Mecca and call for the deaths of kuffar, that's okay in the UK, too, but if you carry a cross and ask for peace and love, you will be shunned and ridiculed, at least.

The acting leader of the centre-left Liberal Democrats, Vincent Cable, has taken the rare step of boycotting the visit in protest over human rights and an allegedly fraudulent arms deal.

The Serious Fraud Office last year investigated BAE Systems' 43 billion pound Al-Yamamah deal in 1985, which provided Hawk and Tornado jets plus other military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

Don't open that one up. It's too big of a rat's nest, and you people in the UK don't really want to know the truth, do you?

But the investigation was shelved by the British government last December in a move supported by the then prime minister Tony Blair amid concerns over Britain's national interest.

There you go, that's the way you do it. The Bush Administration can give you guys some pointers. Corruption and influence peddling can't be investigated due to national interest. Over here, we call it State Secrets Privilege, but a scandal by any other name....

BAE Systems is alleged to have set up a 60 million pound "slush fund" for members of the Saudi royal family to secure business, and made illegal payments to those involved in its deals. BAE strenuously denies the charges.

Because of his boycott, Cable will not be attending the state banquet at Buckingham Palace and other major events to which opposition leaders are usually invited.

"In my opinion, it is quite wrong for the British government to have proposed a state visit at this time," Cable wrote in a letter to the Saudi ambassador.

On Wednesday, protestors are due to stage a mass human rights demonstration outside the Saudi embassy in London supported by figures including senior ruling Labour party MP John McDonnell.

"The British people will be aghast at the government entertaining on a state visit one of the most prominent anti-democratic and human rights abusing leaders in the world," he said.

So? As long as the money & oil are flowing, who cares?

Don't be so Saudiphobic -- one culture is just as valid as another, and who are you to judge the Saudi approach to governing? The UK isn't perfect, you know. Should we list all the abuses propagated by the British Empire throughout history? Finger-pointing at its best....

The centre-left Independent newspaper, meanwhile, ran a front page headline: "A royal guest to be proud of?" above a picture of the king.

"It is difficult to know where to begin when it comes to expressing the inappropriateness of this visit," it added in an editorial.

The king is also set to visit Italy, Germany and Turkey after a three-day stay in London.

The King of Saudi Arabia is telling you to take terrorism more seriously.

Folks, that's just about....

The Islamic States of America?

From Half a Billion “Americans”? by Srdja Trifkovic, August 31, 2007 (minor typos have been edited out of the text):

The latest report from the Center for Immigration Studies on how immigration may impact the future size of America’s population has been released. Their findings are based on the Census Bureau projections, and show that if immigration continues at current levels, the U.S. population will increase from 301 million today to 468 million in 2060—a 167 million (or 56 percent) increase. New immigrants and their descendants will account for 105 million (or 63 percent) of that increase.

The report says that, at the moment, approximately 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the United States each year and 350,000 leave, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. The total projected growth of 167 million would exceed the current total population of Central America (41 million), the Caribbean (37 million) and Egypt (79 million). The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to the present population of Mexico.

The immigration statistics that Dr. Trifkovic cite here factor in illegal immigration, and, to be accurate, they should.

Even those staggering figures are based on the assumption that immigration levels will remain static. Net immigration has been increasing for the past half-century, however, and there are no signs that the trend is changing. If it continues, the increase caused by immigration may well be higher than the projected 105 million—taking us easily to an America of half a billion people five decades from now.

Notice also that Dr. Trifkovic here calls attention to the change in the rate at which immigrants are arriving; that rate has been accelerating, but the Census Bureau projections apparently are not factoring that in?

On the other hand, if the annual level of net immigration was reduced to 300,000—which can be done if the political will is present—future immigration would add 25 million people to the population by 2060. That would be some 80 million fewer than the current level would add.

Enforcing existing immigration laws would have quite an impact.

But, as Dr. Trifkovic so astutely points out, there is the question of political will.

If El Presidente Jorge "My Way or the Highway" Arbusto doesn't have the will to enforce them, do you think President Hillary would?

By the way... why won't Washington enforce the laws and seal our borders?

One of the most interesting findings of the report is that immigration does not have an impact on the overall aging of this country’s population—which is a key argument used by the proponents of open-door policy. In reality,

At the current level of net immigration (1.25 million a year), 61 percent of the nation’s population will be of working age (15 to 66) in 2060, compared to 60 percent if net immigration were reduced to 300,000 a year. If net immigration was doubled to 2.5 million a year it would raise the working-age share of the population by one additional percentage point, to 62 percent, by 2060. But that level of immigration would create a U.S. population of 573 million, double its size in the 2000 Census.

Yes, that is interesting.

Why is it significant?

Some countries have found themselves in an entitlement crisis. They have promised government subsidies and pensions to people, especially retirees, even as birthrates have gone down. Consequently, they have created a problem -- not enough people in the work force to pay for the pensions of the retirees, plus the subsidies for those of working age who don't work.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Their solution is to open up the doors of the nation, and import immigrants.

But, some of these immigrants get generous government aid, and have no need to work.

Absent the need to work, if the culture of these immigrants does not instill in them a desire to work, then they become an added drain on those who do work.

If, in addition to that, they do not integrate into the host society, but rather adopt a hostile, even predatory, attitude towards their new home, then you really have a problem.

If, on top of that, the host culture is too "politically correct" to say anything about the developing problem, you have a recipe for disaster.

Does any of this sound familiar?

The report does not tackle the national security aspect of the problem. The number of Muslim immigrants in the united States is growing more than twice as fast as the already rampant total. Growth of overall immigration since 1970 has been 300 percent, but growth of immigration from the Middle East over the same period has been 700 percent—from under 200,000 in 1970 to 1.5 million in 2000. In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents—almost 100,000—than in any year in the previous two decades. More than 40,000 of them were admitted legally in 2005, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

Why is it that specifically Muslim immigration is addressed in the context of national security?

On current form, in 2010 the expected number of immigrants from the Middle East alone will exceed 2,500,000. Lavishly financed by Saudi and other Middle Eastern oil money, an intricate jihadist infrastructure has come into being to cater to this large and growing community. The number of mosques and Islamic centers stands at around two thousand and keeps growing. The total number of mosques increased 42 percent between 1990 and 2000, compared with a 12 percent average increase for the evangelical Protestant denominations, and a two percent average increase among old-line Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox groups.

There's Saudzilla! Establishing an infrastructure for its version of the Religion of Peace....

Notice how Saudi Arabia will not even allow so much as a Bible in the Kingdom.

How's about some reciprocity, Your Majesty?

That would fly in the face of the obvious goal: Arab Imperialism superimposed on Islamic Imperialism. Saudi Arabia is doing a high-finance version of what the Arabs did so many centuries ago when they swept out of the depths of the Arabian Peninsula under the banner of Allah: Arab Colonialism.

The figures for immigration from the Middle East are already matched, and are likely to be exceeded, by the number of Muslim immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh). Currently Muslims account for one-tenth of all naturalizations, and their birth rates exceed those of any other significant immigrant group.

In order to be effective, these Muslim immigrants have to be Saudified and Wahhabized. This is why, in the global plan, Saudi Arabia funds mosques not just in the West, but in South Asia and elsewhere, as well.

Far from enhancing America’s “diversity,” the coming deluge threatens to impose a numbing Third-World sameness, to eradicate the remnants of this country’s identity, and to demolish what survives of her special character. On current form, not only will English-speaking Americans of European origin become a minority in their own country half a century from now, but they will share an increasingly overpopulated, polluted, lumpenproleterized, culturally unrecognizable country with tens of millions of actual or potential jihadists and their accomplices, aiders and abettors.

The concern here does not seem to be those immigrants who come here and work, and who integrate into, or at least are friendly to, American society... in short the concern does not seem to be those immigrants who appreciate their share of the Land of Opportunity.

The concern is those who come here essentially to take over and take (unfair) advantage.

Whether this colossally criminal idiocy can be stopped, and how, is open to doubt. The cultural-Marxist ruling class sees self-annihilation of peoples with a historical memory and a cultural identity as the key to its revolutionary project. The founders of the United States rebelled against King George for sins far lighter than those of which our rulers are culpable.

"colossally criminal idiocy" -- heh.

King George....

The problem is the new King George, and the previous King Bill.

How's about Queen Hillary?


The Islamic States of America? -- It will never happen here.

You can bet on that.

The Eight-Hundred-Pound Gorilla

There's a recent article in The Jamestown Foundation's Global Terrorism Analysis that helps serve to describe the threat we are facing, and the consequences of not "taking the bull by the horns" to deal with it.

The article appeared earlier this month, and provides background to a terrorist attack that occurred in Yemen early in July. The article is entitled Yemen Faces Second Generation of Islamist Militants, by Gregory D. Johnsen. I reproduce it here in its entirety, with my comments (as usual - heh):

The July 2 suicide attack in Marib, which killed eight Spanish tourists and two Yemeni drivers, painfully illustrated the degree to which Al-Qaeda in Yemen has reorganized itself into an effective force (Terrorism Focus, July 10). The Yemeni government was caught largely unaware by the attack, as it believed the al-Qaeda threat had been neutralized. Yet, while the government managed to deter one generation of militants, it neglected to maintain the initiative through the second generation. This second generation of fighters, many of whom have spent time in Iraq, coalesced around the leadership of some of the 23 men who escaped from a political security prison in Sanaa in February 2006 (Terrorism Focus, February 7, 2006). The government attempted to negotiate for the surrender of many of these escapees, 10 of whom have turned themselves in, but much of its resources over the past few years have been devoted to ending the al-Houthi revolt in the north, which it determined was a more immediate threat (Terrorism Focus, July 31).

There is some background here that needs to be addressed.

A discussion of the July 2 terrorist attack itself can be found here. Basically, however, in that article the analysts argue that there is a schism among Al Qaeda in Yemen between the "old guard" who feel that a de facto truce is appropriate, and young radicals, a "second generation" who seek to prosecute the jihad more rigorously. These younger mujahideen have received experience and radicalization in Iraq; here's the key quote from that article:

The new generation of militants, many of whom were radicalized in Iraq, is determined to carry out attacks in Yemen. This represents a sharp break from the old guard, who have advised their younger members to have patience and allow for negotiations with the Yemeni government to continue. The old guard is also concerned that any attacks within Yemen will lead to a government crackdown on its leadership, much like what happened in the aftermath of the USS Cole attack in 2000 and the September 11 attacks in 2001 (al-Ghad, July 4).

Readers of my blog know that a major source of the problems in Iraq is Saudi Arabia: Saudi volunteers, Saudi know-how and Saudi funding. Since no one will deal with this source of terrorism at the source, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the war in Iraq drags on.

Understanding that militant Saudi Wahhabism is a threat to them, both because of their Shiite Islam, which the Wahhabis hate with a passion, and because of old power politics between Saudi Arabia and their own country, I cannot help but wonder if the Iranians are merely acting out of self-preservation when they support terrorists in Iraq. They are not only tying up American forces, but they are offsetting Saudi influence. The situation is so dire, that I characterize non-Wahhabi Muslims and US and allied military forces as Riders on the Storm, having a common enemy: Saudi-funded hatred.

Continuing now with Yemen Faces Second Generation of Islamist Militants:

Yemen did, however, react quickly in the aftermath of the suicide attack. It arrested a handful of suspects in the days following the attack and, on July 4, it killed Ahmad Baysawani Duwaydar, an Egyptian it claimed masterminded the strike (Terrorism Focus, July 10). Yet, after a more thorough investigation, the government modified its claims, and released the details of the 11-man cell it said was behind the attack (26th of September, August 2). Duwaydar's role in the report was reduced to providing material support to the other members of the cell. Among the suspects were three of the 23 escapees, including the head of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, Nasir al-Wuhayshi. Yemen also identified the suicide bomber as Abdu Muhammad Said Ruhayqah, a 21-year-old who was living in the Sanaa neighborhood of Musayk, which has become known over the past few years as a haven for Islamic militants.

Yemen responded to the most recent threat from al-Qaeda by renewing tribal alliances it had established in 2001 and 2002 to counter the militants. On August 5, three days after Yemen revealed the make-up of the cell, President Ali Abdullah Saleh traveled to Marib and al-Jawf to meet with tribal leaders and ask for their assistance in combating al-Qaeda (al-Sharq al-Awsat, August 6). This was reminiscent of a similar trip Saleh made in late 2001, after more than a dozen soldiers were captured during a failed attempt to arrest two suspects in Marib. The early morning raid Yemen launched on an al-Qaeda hideout three days later demonstrates the success of the negotiations.

Getting the local people to "buy in" to the government's program is important. Generally, people do need to feel they have some power to influence their government's course of action; in the absence of that, there is more support for terror.

Notice what I am saying here: "in the absence of that, there is more support for terror." The terrorism will still be there, regardless; these fanatics hate us, and, according to their ideology, they will go to heaven for trying to kill us. And, this "us" is all-inclusive, since the radical terrorists don't discriminate: they hate anyone who doesn't agree with them.

But, I am trying to draw attention to the surrounding people: they have the options of 1) assisting the government against the terrorists, 2) passively looking on and doing nothing, or 3) assisting and covering for the terrorists. The government's program is aimed at getting them away from the second two options, and toward the first.

The raid, which took place in the border region between Marib and al-Jawf governorates, resulted in the deaths of all four al-Qaeda suspects. Three of the suspects—Ali Ali Nasir Doha, Naji Ali Salih Jaradan and Abd al-Aziz Said Jaradan—were wanted in the March assassination of Ali Mahmud Qasaylah, the chief criminal investigator in Marib, as well as for their role in the July 2 attack (Terrorism Focus, May 22). The fourth suspect was Amar Hasan Salih Haryadan, an 18-year-old from the Mahashimah tribe in al-Jawf. According to Yemen's Interior Ministry, Haraydan had been recruited to be another suicide bomber in an upcoming attack that Al-Qaeda in Yemen was planning (al-Motamar.net, August 9).

And, success! However...

Attacks on army checkpoints, government buildings and an electrical sub-station the following day in Marib appear to be retaliatory strikes by the suspects' relatives and not a response from al-Qaeda. The attacks did little damage, but they do illustrate some of the problems the Yemeni government must navigate as it attempts to dismember al-Qaeda. This is not simply a two-sided battle between the government and Al-Qaeda in Yemen, but rather one of multiple and shifting alliances among a variety of different actors. The murky world of tribal loyalties and militant Islamism in the region has led Arafat Madabish, a Yemeni journalist, to label it "Maribistan" in an unflattering comparison to Pakistan's Waziristan (al-Tagheer.com, August 9).

Consistent with the theory that the people need to buy in to the government's policy, those who disagree with it fought back as they could, but these seemed to be amateurs, and their attacks somewhat ineffective. With a little work, the government might be able to get those same people to prevent radicalist terror attacks to begin with, or at least to not react violently when an attack occurs and the government has to respond.

That's all nice in theory. But, what are we not talking about here?

If Yemen is to succeed in dismantling this second generation of al-Qaeda-like militants, it must have significant tribal assistance. Saleh's August 5 meeting was an important step, but a consistent and ongoing effort is necessary if Yemen does not want to face a third generation of militants.

Geographically, Yemen is on one side, and Iraq is on the other; what we are not talking about here is the eight-hundred-pound gorilla that sits in the middle of the peninsula fomenting all of this by spreading its hateful version of Islam, by spreading terrorist know-how, by supplying jihadi volunteers, and by funding the whole show with petrodollars.

This gorilla is a best friend of President Bush, and until somebody in the White House has the honesty and integrity to deal appropriately with Saudzilla, Yemen will be just another Rider on the Storm.

Bush's Kosovo Policy

Chronicles Magazine is an interesting site. One of the reasons I like it so much is because it features the work of Dr. Srdja Trifkovic. Dr. Trifkovic is of Serbian heritage, and is very well-educated and articulate. He has a particularly good handle on Eastern European affairs, though I find that his articles are well worth reading, regardless of what topic he writes about; he does his research, and develops his points logically, using clear and appropriate analogies.

Dr. Trifkovic has a fairly recent article entitled The President’s Painted Corner. Please go to the link and read it; as always, Dr. Trifkovic's article is most excellent.

In his article, Dr. Trifkovic addresses the policy of the current Bush Administration to promote the independence of Kosovo.

My readers my not be familiar with the background and significance of Kosovo, and it is beyond the scope of this article to address that in depth. Briefly, however, Kosovo is now a mainly ethnic Albanian/Muslim area in Serbia. In that respect, it is somewhat akin to certain regions of the United States, in that the United States is predominantly an English-speaking, Protestant country, which has regions with significant Spanish-speaking, Catholic minorities. However, generally speaking, those two groups in the United States get along reasonably well; this has certainly not been the case between the 1) Slavic and Orthodox Christian Serbs and the 2) ethnic Albanian and Muslim people in Kosovo.

In the fourteenth century, Kosovo was the scene of a big battle between the Serbs and invading Muslim armies. In that respect, a comparison with the Alamo, scene of a battle between Texans seeking independence from Mexico and the Mexican Army under Santa Anna, is somewhat useful.

It should be emphatically noted, however, that such comparisons only serve up to a point; again, relations between the "anglos" and the "latinos" in America are not bad, relations between the United States of America and the United Mexican States are generally good, and, in any case, any historical animosities are neither as deep nor as old as they are in the Balkans.

For a little more background on Kosovo, you may wish to begin with the Wikipedia article.

I have reproduced here some excerpts of Dr. Trifkovic's article, along with my comments:

It is not prudent for the United States to insist that Kosovo should and will become independent—as President George W. Bush did in Tirana last June, followed by similar sermons from Dr. Rice and her aides on an almost daily basis—even as it is obvious that Russia will veto any attempt to achieve that goal through the U.N. Security Council, and even as the European Union is increasingly reluctant to participate in any scheme to bypass the United Nations. Statements by U.S. officials that Kosovo’s independence is “inevitable” are a classic case of irresponsible policymakers painting themselves into a corner on a peripheral issue, and then claiming that the issue had morphed into a test of American resolve.

Never mind that it is not prudent -- which, as we will see, it is actually quite foolish -- but why would we want to?

Keep that question in mind as you consider this topic: Why does the Bush Administration insist that Kosovo become independent?

A mature, self-confident and globally hegemonistic “hyperpower” would never allow Kosovo to become such a test for three reasons.

Quite apart from its historic, cultural, moral, and legal aspects, the issue of who controls the southern Serbian province is perfectly irrelevant to American interests. It is a small, land-locked piece of real estate, of dubious “objective” value, away from all major Balkan transit corridors, and not nearly as rich in natural resources as both Serbs and Albanians like to imagine. If Kosovo were to disappear tomorrow, no ordinary American would be able to tell the difference.

Okay, no reason there to insist on Kosovo's independence from Serbia....

The change of Kosovo’s status against the will of Belgrade, in addition to being a clear violation of international law, would set a precedent potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. To enable an ethnic minority to secede from an internationally recognized state on the grounds of that minority’s numerical preponderance in a given locale would open a Pandora’s box of claims all over the world, not least among Russian speakers in the Crimea, parts of Estonia and Latvia, northern Kazakhstan, and eastern Ukraine. It could also affect the future of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and perhaps even California, when Mexicans achieve a simple majority in those states. (The question is indeed “when,” not “if.”) State Department officials Nicholas Burns and Daniel Fried still insist that no precedent would be set by creating an independent Kosovo, but they cannot control reality, and their assurances are nonsensical.

There Dr. Trifkovic outlines some serious counterincentives.

If a group of people can simply move in to an area, and continue arriving until members of that group become a majority in that area, and then have an internationally-recognizable claim to independence from the country to which they immigrated, that would really cause some problems.

Sweden would become "balkanized", places in France would no longer belong to France, and, as Dr. Trifkovic alludes to, the United States might quickly no longer be united.

The Muslim world will not be appeased by Kosovo today any more than it was appeased by Bosnia a decade ago. America will not earn any brownie points among the world’s “Jihadists of all color and hue” (to borrow a phrase from Rep. Tom Lantos) for creating a new Muslim state in the heart of Europe. Albanian “gratitude” would prove as valuable to America today as it has, over the years, to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. On the other hand, the failure to create an independent, internationally recognized Kosovo would be yet another sign that Emperor Bush has no clothes and that America has no sureness of touch. Furthermore, favoring the imposition of a “solution” from the outside against the will of one of the parties could set a dangerous long-term precedent for Israel.

Danger to Israel by imposing a solution from the outside....

But, what's this about no "brownie points" for America among the world's jihadists?

Well, those guys are so mean, they hate themselves -- literally.

But, what about certain other elements in the Islamic world?

Is there anyone in the Islamic world to whom Bush hopes to endear himself? Anyone whose policies he seems to further? Anyone that he is exceptionally close to, both in business dealings and on a personal level?

Our policy is not sensible. It panders to the aspirations of a small and primitive, yet shrewdly opportunistic, polity with territorial pretensions against all of her neighbors. President George W. Bush declared in Tirana last June that America is committed to Kosovo’s independence, and he was greeted almost as enthusiastically as Benito Mussolini, Nikita Khrushchev, and Chou En-Lai had been greeted by the Albanians over the decades. As Nicholas Stavrou noted in the National Herald, Mr. Bush reflects the Albanians’ talent for choosing patrons who fulfill three criteria: They must be big enough, far enough, and willing to offend the interests of Albania’s neighbors:

President Bush’s venture into the Balkan tinderbox is nothing short of a blatant provocation aimed at two nations that stood side by side with the United States in two wars, Serbia and Greece. It is part and parcel of a neo-conservative agenda, formulated by the same gang that produced the Iraq war . . . and threatens to engulf the Middle East into a regional conflagration. The ultimate goal, of course, is the conversion of Russia into a first class enemy. The new Cold War warriors view the Balkans as a “logical extension of the Middle East” that ought to be part of a new arrangement that would facilitate integration of Islamic and non-Islamic cultures. Russia, in their view, cannot be trusted with any role in their nefarious schemes to “modernize” Islam and redefine the Middle East as a “region that starts in the Persian Gulf and ends in Sarajevo.”

Serbia and Greece, two nations that have historically been on the front lines against violent Islamic expansion, the kind Osama bin Laden advocates....

And President Bush, who made the comment:

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

is siding with Kosovo, whose links to Islamic mafia and Islamic terrorists are well-known.

Our policy is perfectly sensible. We just need to (forgive me for using this over-used buzz-phrase) "connect the dots."

It is plainly irrational to insist on Kosovo’s independence, with all the risks such a policy entails, while the United States faces so much other “unfinished business” around the globe. The list is well known and depressing. Iraq is a disaster, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Afghanistan is a lesser calamity only when compared with Iraq. Any solution to the challenge presented by Iran will depend on Washington’s ability to have Russia on its side as a partner, which is impossible if Moscow’s concerns over Kosovo are treated as illegitimate. Russia is also an essential partner in helping control Kim Jong Il and devising a sustainable long-term energy policy for the Western world.

Insisting on Kosovo's independence is only irrational if you are concerned about US national security -- or the national security of Serbia, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, etc.

In short, Kosovo is an asymmetric issue. Mr. Bush cares about it only as it relates to U.S. “credibility.” The second greatest blunder of his presidency may result from his willingness to accept the assurances of inherited Clintonite bureaucrats of Mr. Burns’ ilk, who have insisted that the Serbs will cave in and that the Russians will budge.

If push comes to shove, Mr. Bush will face Moscow all alone. There is a great deal of dissent in Europe, from Madrid to Athens to Bucharest and Bratislava, but not even those Europeans who are nominally pro-independence—notably, the Germans—would sacrifice a single day’s supply of natural gas over Albanian claims. By contrast, this is, for Serbia, an existential issue and, for Russia, a litmus test of her ability to be a great power once again.

The most important reason the United States should not support Kosovo’s independence is and always has been cultural and civilizational; but trying to explain that to the chief executive who is fanatically supportive of a blanket amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens in the United States is as futile as trying to reform Islam.

George W. Bush has painted himself into a tight corner in the Balkans, and he will get a bloody nose if he does not relent. That is bad news for the church-burning Albanian Muslims of Kosovo, and bad news for their heroin-financed lobby in Washington, but it is very good news for America and the civilized world.

Saudi Arabia has been pouring a great deal of resources into Islamic communities in the Balkans.

The Saudis have been financing mosque construction and renovation, they have been training mullahs and sending them to the Balkans....

The Saudis sent mujahideen to the Balkans in the 1990's; although their holy warriors were of little use on the battlefield, they had a great impact committing atrocities against the infidels, and increasing the level of brutality in that war, provoking Serb reactions. Saudi "freedom fighters" (terrorists) even managed to irritate the Croats, who were Muslim allies against the Serbs -- so much so, that on at least one occasion the Croats were pulling troops off the lines facing the Serbs, and putting them on the lines facing the mujahideen!

The Saudis have a vested interest in Kosovo becoming independent from Serbia. They also have a vested interest in seeing that precedent set, so other lands that have growing Muslim minorities can some day have their Muslim enclaves demand independence from the nations to which the places where they live now belong.

That would mean the dismemberment of Sweden, Norway, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, Holland, Denmark, Spain, Canada and the United States, to name a few Western nations.

Russia (Chechnya!), China (Ningxia, Gansu, Xinjiang!!), India (Kashmir!!!) and other countries would not be immune, either.

And Bush is furthering this goal -- although whether deliberately or through incompetence remains to be legally established.

Allahu Akbar, Mr. President!

Riders on the Storm

A post of mine from early last month, Imagine You're a Woman, describes the plight of women in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. According to the interpretation of Islamic law in the KSA, women are basically slaves; they are treated in many ways not unlike cattle, needing a male to be in charge of them all their lives.

Riders on the storm

One commentator who responded to that post is Rider of Rohan, who said, in part: "Well, I'm a Muslim woeman myself, and somehow I feel the stuff written in this post are so typical of Saudi Arabia. And its taken as a benchmark for the way Islam is supposed to function."

Riders on the storm

Those words nail it.

The Saudis are on the scene, worldwide, with more petrodollars than a camel can carry. They use this money to spread Islam; but, it's not just any Islam, it's their brand of Islam: a particulary violent and intolerant version of Islam. The Saudis fund the construction and renovation of mosques, and they arrange for Islamic scholars to study Islam in their Kingdom; but, those who accept their help find a price tag hidden in the bargain: as Saudi influence spreads, the Islamic world becomes radicalized, intolerant, and explosively violent.

Into this house we're born

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, explains his view: Why I Serve As Executive Director, Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP) (I italicized the name of his book, where that is not done at his site -- YD):

June 7, 2007

A Bosnian supporter of my book The Two Faces of Islam wrote to me about the Saudi-funded Wahhabis there:

"I used to gaze into their faces, and believe me they are more than ready to kill us: ordinary Bosnian Hanafi Muslims. I clearly see it as I see this day. The only thing that prevents them from conducting that is the state, law enforcement and their small number which guarantees them complete disappearance if they commence such an adventure...

"They will kill us first. I have no doubt about that. I can show that their fascism (which is easy to establish) is primarily directed towards Muslims, as you can clearly follow up throughout the Muslim world wherever they have sizable followings.

"We are their first and last targets; accepting Islam you transformed yourself into their target."

Into this world we're thrown

"Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -- shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret." Qur'an 2:62

Like a dog without a bone

In addition to being executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Stephen Suleyman Schwartz is an author whose work appears in The Daily Standard and The Weekly Standard

The Saudi Connection
In Iraq and elsewhere, terrorism thrives with Saudi support.

by Stephen Schwartz
07/30/2007 12:00:00 AM

ALMOST SIX YEARS after September 11, 2001, and more than four years since the beginning of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq, the American government and media have begun to admit something every informed and honest Muslim in the world has known all along. That is: the "Sunni insurgency" in Iraq, as well as 9/11 and certain acts of extremist Sunni violence inside Iraq before then, are consequences of the official status of the ultra-fundamentalist Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's southern neighbor. Saudi Wahhabi clerics have preached and recruited for terror in Iraq; Saudi money has sustained it; the largest number of those who have carried out suicide bombings north of the Saudi-Iraqi border have been Saudi citizens.

Does this sound obvious and familiar? Perhaps to regular readers of THE WEEKLY STANDARD and THE DAILY STANDARD, which have reported frequently on the Saudi connection to terror in the Iraq war since the phenomenon first appeared. But the truth is finally seeping out elsewhere.

An actor out of role

On Friday, July 27, the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on the links between Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi terror in Iraq, employing their usual cautious and polite language when dealing with the desert kingdom. The Post ran a Reuters rewrite of the Times reportage, casting the problem in terms of Saudi distrust for the Shia-led Iraqi administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the resulting difficulties facing Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates as they visit the Saudis this week. Seven paragraphs down, the story quoted the Times about the real issue: "the Saudis had offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq and U.S. officials were increasingly concerned about its close Arab ally's 'counterproductive' role in Iraq."

Riders on the storm

"Counterproductive" is a euphemism for Saudi state subsidies to Wahhabi clerics who demand the genocide of Shia Muslims, urge young men to go north and sacrifice themselves to that end, and preach eulogies after their deaths. It is also a diplomatic way to describe the official Saudi policy of ignoring financial contributions by rich Saudi citizens to support Wahhabi terror in Iraq. Others might call such behavior acts of war rather than merely "counterproductive."

There's a killer on the road

The Times itself, in an article by Helene Cooper, further noted, "Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow."

His brain is squirmin' like a toad

Administration officials, the paper reported "spoke on the condition of anonymity because they believed that openly criticizing Saudi Arabia would further alienate the Saudi royal family." Then came the bald truth: "the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia [and] about 40 percent of all foreign fighters are Saudi. Officials said that while most of the foreign fighters came to Iraq to become suicide bombers, others arrived as bomb makers, snipers, logisticians and financiers."

Take a long holiday

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has "revealed" information about the Al Rajhi Bank, one of the kingdom's main financiers of Wahhabism, most of which has been available in print for several years. The "fresh" disclosures include the role of the Al Rajhi Bank in facilitating Saudi extremist operations. But the Journal admits that the Al Rajhi name appeared on a document many Westerners were loath to take seriously, the "Golden Chain" roster of al Qaeda donors seized by Bosnian authorities in Sarajevo, and handed over to the U.S. government in 2002.

Let your children play

The totalitarian ideology of our enemies places a focus of hatred on anyone who disagrees with them. You are not supposed to so much as question them, but merely accept their explanations and their views...

If ya give this man a ride

...submitting to their ideology until you are divorced from reality, unable to think independently, and waiting to be programmed; lost to humanity....

Sweet memory will die

Yet even the Journal seems not to have noticed that the Al Rajhi financial system's Suleiman Abdul Al-Aziz Al Rajhi also created the SAAR Foundation, an object of the federal raid known as GreenQuest, which struck a nest of Islamist entities in Northern Virginia in 2002.

Killer on the road, yeah

Why has there been so little media interest in the role of Saudi money and influence in Iraq and elsewhere? The best explanation is media cooperation with the official U.S. preference for the "quiet, behind-the-scenes influence" that one administration after another has defaulted to in dealing with Saudi problems, and which the Saudis exploit to continue their deceptive ways.

Girl ya gotta love your man

Saudis and Iraqis, even with own imperfect media, are much better informed. Here is what they have been reading.

Girl ya gotta love your man

* On July 25, the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan reported on 61 Saudis held in Iraqi jails. The inferred charge was terrorism.

Take him by the hand

* The day before, Al-Watan described an uproar over Saudi clerics advocating the destruction of Shia holy sites in Iraq. According to Iraqi sources, the Wahhabis have specifically called for the destruction of the shrines of Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, in Karbala, and of Caliph Ali, the prophet's son-in-law, in Najaf--the two most sacred Shia sites. As also reported in Iraqi media, students at the Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, located in Riyadh and known as the "terrorist factory," have organized activist groups and sent members streaming north to join the onslaught on Iraqi Shias.

Make him understand

* On July 17, the Grand Mufti or chief Islamic cleric of the Saudi kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Al Ash-Shaykh, cautioned Saudis not to go to Iraq to engage in terror, and said that "those who mislead young Muslims, calling them to jihad, refuse to send their own sons to participate in the same conflict."

The world on you depends

* On July 16, the Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat quoted the comment of Prince Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who wriggles like an eel on this issue, that Saudis lured to participate in the Iraq terror are "brainwashed teenagers." The same day, the Saudi daily Al-Hayat interviewed U.S. Treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey, who argued that financing terror in Iraq is no different from contributing to al Qaeda elsewhere.

Our life will never end

* And the day before that, on July 15, the Wahhabi website Al-Sahat posted a list of Saudi terrorists recently killed in Iraq, with names, addresses, and dates and places of their demise.

Gotta love your man, yeah

This, too, is merely the beginning of a long inventory of such information reported in the Muslim world. Nobody can say the Saudis, Iraqis, and other Muslims do not know who organizes and supports the Wahhabi terror in Iraq.

Wow!

We -- the United States and our allies -- have deployed our military forces across the southern part of Asia, battling terrorists and their allies.

Riders on the storm

Yet, no one is dealing with the source of the hatred that is producing those terrorists, and no one is dealing with the source of the funding that trains and equips them.

Riders on the storm

For a variety of demographic reasons, birthrates in the Islamic world are quite high...

Into this house we're born

...and Saudi-trained and -funded "holy men" are ready to fill the minds of these young Muslims with violent Wahhabi hatred... a never-ending supply of suicide bombers, and petrodollars to equip them...

Into this world we're thrown

...preachers of hatred, waiting like so many spiders.

None of the recent "revelations" should come as a suprise to anyone. In 2002, THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported on the Al Rajhi financial network and terrorism; in 2003 on the Saudi injection of Wahhabi radicals into Iraq, including Saudi media publicity about their deaths in defense of Saddam Hussein and on Saudi involvement in combat against the U.S.-led coalition at Falluja; in 2004 on general Saudi support for terror in Iraq, and yet more on the Saudi involvement in the fight for Falluja.

Like a dog without a bone

One question remains: How many more American and Coalition soldiers, as well as innocent Iraqis, will be killed before the Saudis are compelled to end their support for terrorism in Iraq?

An actor out of role

US and allied troops continue to fight Saudi-backed and -supplied terrorists in Iraq....

Riders on the storm

Iran, seeing the threat posed to Shiites by Saudi-funded hatred, in part seeks merely to protect its own interests....

Riders on the storm

US and allied troops continue to fight Saudi-run and -funded Al Qaeda in Afghanistan....

Riders on the storm

Sibel Edmonds continues to be gagged by the US Presidential Administration of a friend of the Saudi elite....

Riders on the storm

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and others are being sued by the likes of Saudi Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, the Saudi-backed Council on American Islamic Relations, and others....

Riders on the storm

And rank-and-file Muslims must Saudify, or face the consequences....

Riders on the storm