Saudia Arabia - The Chief Sponsor of Al-Qaeda

The Council on Foreign Relation is releasing a report today which alleges that Saudi Arabia remains the chief source of financial aid for the baddies. The report has been criticised by the Bush administration as a throwback to the Clinton days.
Terror Funds Flow Through Saudi Arabia - Washington Post

'Terror' has fallen of the agenda somewhat in the US these days, but what do ye think? Will this become an issue for the presidential candidates?

SA is according to a chart posted on our oil price thread, the worlds largest oil producer. I suppose they can afford to hedge their bets.

cactus flower wrote:

SA is according to a chart posted on our oil price thread, the worlds largest oil producer. I suppose they can afford to hedge their bets.

Most of those involved in 9/11 were Saudi, as far as I recall. They're Wahhabis, which is a particularly fundamentalist, conservative, and puritan brand of Islam. Saudi oil money also funds many of the madrassas worldwide.

The thing is, America was supposed to be doing quite well on the financial and funding aspect, organising a sort of CAB for terrorism. Whatever about bombing villages in Somalia and kidnapping people in Italy, this was one thing we thought they were doing well. They had tried to tackle Saudi funding, but it seems they were far less successful than we thought, and even seem to have their heads in the sand about the extent of the problem.

It's at the stage where we're actually hoping that this was a deliberate, look-the-other-way policy with the Americans deciding that oil and profit are more important than the war on terrorism. Because the alternative - that they genuinely believe that SA isn't part of the problem is more frightening.

But the US was an original funder of the Al Qaeda group - they supported Afghanistan covertly in their fight against the Russians. Al Qaeda helped to see the Russians off and they were among the heroes of the hour at that time. As was Saddam for his war on Iran and lots of other major inconsistencies somehow being overlooked now in all the hysteria about 'the axis of evil' and other claptrap. Sooner or later the US will turn its attention to Saudi Arabia and find that it too is an evil empire after all. Until it suits the US gameplan however, the hypocrisy will continue and the media will largely pretend that it believes the nonsense being spouted by Washington about why it is bombing people into faux democracy. Saudi is 'our friend' for the time being.

Let's forget that for the most part, Al Qaeda is a myth.

There are a number of factors that prevent the Saudis from being "sorted out."

Tis true that they are the main sponsors of terrorism. That's 'terrorism,' as the US defines it; exploding backpackers and the like. They also sponsor terror related activities that positively make the US administration and their western allies (ourselves included) wet themselves at the mere thoughts of them.

i. They for the most part, run OPEC and will bring your country and economy to a standstill should you annoy them or dare to threaten them. They'll also raise prices given the opportunity regardless to what they promise. Check out their promises to Bush, about keeping oil prices low, whilst Iraq was being "sorted out." Talk about catching poor old Bush with his pants down. He was pissing oil so freely during the war effort (he still is), a jubilee clip wouldn't have stopped it. The Saudi's considered it time to make a score and they did so, big time. So beautifully caught was poor ole broke Bush, that he didn't even so much as grimace in their general direction.

ii. The current POTUS, Georgie junior, is so beholden to the Bin Laden family in particular, that he could not make a move against them even if his life depended on it (and indeed, his life probably does depend on it). The Bin Ladens funded Georgie's first ever company (an unmitigated disaster) Arbusto. Not to mention having major punching power within the Carlyle Group (until their names got taken off the books - who in God's name had the cash to buy them out?).

iii. Then there's the fact that the British dropped an investigation into BAE allegedly paying a certain member of the Bin Laden family billions of dollars to facilitate arms deals. Bandar apparently told Tony Blair to drop the investigation or else... Or else intelligence would not be forwarded to the British regarding terrorist networks and possible attacks - I kid you not! Interestingly too, good ole Prince Bandar is affectionately known as "Bandar Bush," in certain circles. Circles like the Bush family for example.

iv. Ahhh... But... you say. Bush is on the way out.

You have much to learn young Jedis. The POTUS is only a pawn, as is the British Premier. Piss off the Saudis and they gently squeeze the genitalia of the Oil companies and big business in general. Notions of rebelling against Saudi rule are soon forgotten.

Arbusto was a very good name for the company.
What does the Carlyle group do? and do you have a link for the arms investigation story?

Most of us will only know about these links from Michael Moore.

I wonder is there a book on oil and geopolitics that the MN Book Club could look at after we've finished 'Collapse'?

cactus flower wrote:

Arbusto was a very good name for the company.

Hermes' post sounded a bit Michael Moorish though, which is not a good thing (truth hurts). I don't care who Mr. Bush is so beholden to, I just can't see that affecting US policy, set as much in the Pentagon and State department as in the White House. Whatever else you might say about the Yankee army, I just can't see them navigating around Bush's past on such an emotive issue. It's all a bit of a moot point though as it hasn't much to do with Saudi funding. It does raise interesting questions as to the whereabouts of Bin Laden. Has anyone checked the ranch in Texas?

I think you exaggerate (now this is just me) when you attribute world domination to the Saudi royalty.

Hermes wrote:

The POTUS is only a pawn, as is the British Premier ... notions of rebelling against Saudi rule are soon forgotten.

As Putin once mentioned, the oil-producing countries need us as much as we need them. At least he has frozen mammoth and caviar to fall back on; the Saudi (indeed the Arab) economy isn't doing great at the moment, and they kind of need things to look all right. That can be upset for them very easily.

None of which explains why they have been reluctant to move in on the various Saudi fundings (to say nothing of that court case in Britain). I just ask (beg rather, 'cos it doesn't look like I've much to stand on) that you don't jump to crazy conclusions about oil wars and conspiracies.

Quote :

I don't care who Mr. Bush is so beholden to, I just can't see that affecting US policy, set as much in the Pentagon and State department as in the White House.

905 - you are joking, aren't you? Do you have any idea the power that the Bush dynasty actually wields? If ever there was an axis of evil it surely is the one on which the multi-trillion dollar US oil barons sit. The Bush family are at the epicentre of that group - the most powerful and influential in the world. They are at the heart of the industrial military complex - all of the wars in the Middle East are being faught at their behest. These are all oil wars, pure and simple. Bush senior and junior have installed oil industry people in every possible position of power that they can: US foreign policy and military effort is determined by them.

One of the authors of 'The Project for the New American Century' has said that, once their plan for Middle East domination has been rolled out 'The Saudis can go f**k themselves'. It believe it was Dick Cheney who said it back in 1997.

For the time being, however, the Saudis have to be respected. The US can't take everybody on at once.

Michael Moore?!!

There’s nothing passive-aggressive about me.

In fairness, I kinda like Mr. Moore, but I’d certainly not consider myself a kindred spirit. I love some of his work, but I can’t help but feel that it’s all a prelude to Michael running for office in the near future. Kudos to him I suppose, at least he’ll have come to power via some damn hard work.

I’m more into Greg Palast. Mr. Palast, a one time financial investigator, turned his considerable skills into making him one of the word’s best and most hated investigative journalists. Couple his incredible investigative abilities with his acidic tipped pen and you have a man that I couldn’t but help admire. There’s no passive-agressiveness in Mr. Palast, he’ll stand right in your face laughing at you whilst he urinates on your shoes. The world’s elite hate him with a passion. He’s got the ability to deliver the most stunning of factual news in a deadpan and sarcastic way that one is caught between laughter and deep shock. Of course, the laughter dies, shock remains.

Here’s some links regarding the Oil War:

http://www.gregpalast.com/its-still-the-oilsecret-condi-meeting-on-oil-before-invasion/#more-1601
http://www.gregpalast.com/off-the-rails-big-oil-big-brother-win-big-in-the-state-of-the-union/
http://www.gregpalast.com/waist-deep-in-the-big-muddy/
http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools/
http://www.gregpalast.com/big-oil-and-the-trillion-dollar-war-bonus/
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-best-thing-in-the-world-for-big-oil/

Here’s a link to Palast’s site (I cannot praise it highly enough):
http://www.gregpalast.com/

Here’s some info on the BAE scandal:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article1914426.ece

Here’s some coverage of the recent UK court case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/bae.armstrade

The Carlyle Group - in their own words:
http://www.carlyle.com/

The Carlyle Group - as others see them:
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

An interesting book to read, regarding oil and global corporatism (only one of the subjects covered) is “Armed Madhouse,” by Greg Palast (of course! ):
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Madhouse-Afraid-Floats-Dispatches/dp/0525949682

Now, would Michael Moore give ye all that?

Pah!!

Aragon,
There seems to be a need by some for a James Bond villain. First it was Hermes with his Saudi royal family ruling the world, now it's the Bush dynasty that runs the show. I suppose they had John Kerry nominated for the Democrats.

Now call me a naive farmboy, but I was under the impression that the US was a democracy. That the people were moderately intelligent or at least literate. And that they were all upset over the terrorist attacks. I suspect that they wouldn't be so passive about allowing their president to take over the world killing their sons in battle, when he's supposed to be defeating terrorists. Maybe he has hoodwinked 400 million people, I don't know. But I doubt it.

OK, 905, you're a naive farmboy

I don't share your unquestioning faith in the corporate/political establishment. A lot of what you say amounts to no more than subjective refusals such as 'I can't believe...' or 'surely not' type reasoning - as if the things being described to you reflect on the messenger rather than on the protagonists - and is if your own sense of disbelief and/or amazement at the possibility that such things might really be true amounted to a rational or factual defence of anything. I can understand that, to be honest. It is shocking when you first beging to contemplate just how skewed things are. Keep an open mind, is what I suggest. Your heroes may not turn out to be so great as you thought, after all.

The vast majority of Americans are clueless about politics. Michael Moore is seen here as a joke and after watching bowling for Columbine against my better judgement the other day I can see why. This guy Palast is one great writer if his book Armed Madhouse is any indication. I read it last year when it came out and then some time later I saw the guy getting tazered http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1606277730046267759&q=don%27t+taze+me+bro&ei=b2sOSK-9JZ2mrALI99GwBA If you look closely you will see that he has Palast's book in his hand and it raises good questions. I am also of the opinion that the Saudi's could divulge info on Bush that would not be pleasant.

Aragon wrote:

I don't share your unquestioning faith in the corporate/political establishment

Aragon,
I don't share your unquestioning faith in the forward slash. Linking corporate and political in such a manner doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. I could easily link up corporate/religious and start suspecting the Pope. Sinn Féin/IRA are a well known example of people forward slashing to suit their argumants.

I have unquestioning faith in mankind, Aragon. I don't believe human beings could cook up such a diabolical and twisted scheme, turning the grief of millions into private gain. Not because mankind is good or anything, but because they're so unbelievably incompetant. You ask me to attribute superhuman levels of ingenuity, subtlety and purpose of mind to the villains and at the same time expect the bulk of the American public to be idiots?

delete

905 wrote:

Aragon,
I don't share your unquestioning faith in the forward slash.
Linking corporate and political in such a manner doesn't make it so,
I'm afraid. I could easily link up corporate/religious and start
suspecting the Pope. Sinn Féin/IRA are a well known example of people
forward slashing to suit their argumants.

I don't believe that Aragon was attempting to instill faith regarding the existence of the forward slash.

The existence of a major relationship between corporate and political bodies is unquestionable. It seems to me that you are questioning the use of convention and are shooting the messanger rather than arguing your position. Giving examples of relationships that do not exist (and I'm not arguing that you did so successfully) destroys neither the convention itself nor its validity. If two words separated by a forward slash do not have the relationship the poster is arguing, the convention has not been correctly used, the convention itself is not invalidated. Nor indeed, is the argument progressed by giving examples of where the convention is incorrectly applied. Why not instead show how it is that you could believe that such a relationship could not exist? To do otherwise is to expect the other to guess as to your reasoning and to put an answer to it, which of course you can then say, doesn't reflect your beliefs at all. That's unfair and is quite underhand.

Dear Hermes,
I won't pretend I followed the second half of your post but you sounded a bit mad with me.

Hermes wrote:

The existence of a major relationship between corporate and political bodies is unquestionable.

I don't question this, though it is debatable how big is 'major'. But he didn't say relationship (I have a relationship with politics for crying out loud), he said 'establishment'

Aragon wrote:

corporate/political establishment.

Which, along with:

Aragon wrote:

If ever there was an axis of evil it surely is the one on which the multi-trillion dollar US oil barons sit. The Bush family are at the epicentre of that group - the most powerful and influential in the world. They are at the heart of the industrial military complex - all of the wars in the Middle East are being faught at their behest. These are all oil wars, pure and simple. Bush senior and junior have installed oil industry people in every possible position of power that they can: US foreign policy and military effort is determined by them.

is a bit hard to swallow.

Perhaps I have countered Aragon more on the style of hs message rather than the message itself. But I can't see why I should have to accept the existence of a corporate/political establishment and then have to doubt its existence.

905 wrote:

Hermes wrote:The existence of a major relationship between corporate and political bodies is unquestionable.

I don't question this, though it is debatable how big is 'major'. But
he didn't say relationship (I have a relationship with politics for
crying out loud), he said 'establishment'

Aragon wrote:corporate/political establishment.

In fairness 905, I get it, I know you disagree. My issue is that I don't know why. Using statistics and saying something is improbable (or indeed up to being impossible) is all well and fine if one is calculating and using an astronomical amount of variables. There are very few variables being used here and they've all been quantified.

It's fair enough that you have a relationship with politics too. As do I, though it's a very unhappy one

Allow me to put it this way: What department of our Government is fully functional?

Okay, that might be a little unfair as one cannot have a fully efficient machine. So, what department of our Government is at an acceptable level of functionality?

I'd credibly suggest, that if you nominate such a department, you'll get savaged by others on this forum. That, if I'm correct, allows me or anyone else a very large degree of credibility with regard to postulating possible reasons for the delinquency of our Government. Indeed, my question can be extrapolated into saying that because the Government does not function at a credible level, they do not serve the needs and desires of the people. This in turn begs the question: who's needs do they serve?

And we arrive back, in circular fashion, to the forward slash: corporate/political establishment.

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

I don't care who Mr. Bush is so beholden to, I just can't see that affecting US policy, set as much in the Pentagon and State department as in the White House.

905 - you are joking, aren't you? Do you have any idea the power that the Bush dynasty actually wields? If ever there was an axis of evil it surely is the one on which the multi-trillion dollar US oil barons sit. The Bush family are at the epicentre of that group - the most powerful and influential in the world. They are at the heart of the industrial military complex - all of the wars in the Middle East are being faught at their behest. These are all oil wars, pure and simple. Bush senior and junior have installed oil industry people in every possible position of power that they can: US foreign policy and military effort is determined by them.

One of the authors of 'The Project for the New American Century' has said that, once their plan for Middle East domination has been rolled out 'The Saudis can go f**k themselves'. It believe it was Dick Cheney who said it back in 1997.

For the time being, however, the Saudis have to be respected. The US can't take everybody on at once.

I am guessing that this is the document you are referring to Hermes? Not wanting to be nitpicking but PNAC is a group, rather than a publication, I think.

Rebuilding Americas Defenses should be compulsory reading as it spells out an agenda for the US over much wider territories than the near east.

I think there are dangers from focusing on the Bush's to the exclusion of the much larger number of people who make up the caste running the US. If they disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't make much difference politically. We see Hilary Clinton yesterday saying that she would obliterate Iraq. The other side of this coin is that the US is no longer the economically dominant power that it was and as youngdan will confirm faces the potential of significant upheaval at home. It is clearly a very dangerous era we are living in, a bit like being locked in a small room with a dying mammoth.

However, where there is life, there is hope, and every expectation that our species will try to move through this to something better.

How's about this one: Al Jazeera - Saudi Arabia wins 9/11 court battle
The Saudis are protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, mainly because the State Department won't put them on the terrorist sponsor list.

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

I don't care who Mr. Bush is so beholden to, I just can't see that affecting US policy, set as much in the Pentagon and State department as in the White House.

905 - you are joking, aren't you? Do you have any idea the power that the Bush dynasty actually wields? If ever there was an axis of evil it surely is the one on which the multi-trillion dollar US oil barons sit. The Bush family are at the epicentre of that group - the most powerful and influential in the world. They are at the heart of the industrial military complex - all of the wars in the Middle East are being faught at their behest. These are all oil wars, pure and simple. Bush senior and junior have installed oil industry people in every possible position of power that they can: US foreign policy and military effort is determined by them.

One of the authors of 'The Project for the New American Century' has said that, once their plan for Middle East domination has been rolled out 'The Saudis can go f**k themselves'. It believe it was Dick Cheney who said it back in 1997.

For the time being, however, the Saudis have to be respected. The US can't take everybody on at once.

Tolerated. The Saudis are tolerated. They are far from respected by anybody.

From what I saw from a recent documentary, the Saudis are nomads who happened to come by oil. They are never so happy as when they are out in a desert with their tents hunting with hawks. Or in a Mayfair casino. Maybe Hermes is right and Al Qaeda is mainly convenient myth.

cactus flower wrote:

From what I saw from a recent documentary, the Saudis are nomads who happened to come by oil. They are never so happy as when they are out in a desert with their tents hunting with hawks. Or in a Mayfair casino. Maybe Hermes is right and Al Qaeda is mainly convenient myth.

Al-Qaeda is a myth in terms of how it is often portrayed in the media with Osama Bin Laden controlling a terrorist organsiation that has infiltrated all corners of the world. It`s hard to explain to people who grew up with specific Army structures even within our own home grown terrorist groups. It`s like this though. Imagine if every county in ireland had it`s own terrorist group who had developed in response to local conditions but who shared a broadly similar ideology (but it was still located in the locale in each individual case) now throw in a prominent inter-county terrorist with access to huge funds who was willing to share funds and expertise with any of the 32 individual terrorist groups as long as they were willing to cooperate with him. Sometimes these groups would be willing to support Bin laden sometimes they`d tell him to go and shite. Sometimes they`d be open to his influence othertimes they`d not be. He might influence the actions of any of these groups at anytime but at no time would he controlling them all or even more than a small number of them.

cactus flower wrote:

From what I saw from a recent documentary, the Saudis are nomads who happened to come by oil. They are never so happy as when they are out in a desert with their tents hunting with hawks. Or in a Mayfair casino. Maybe Hermes is right and Al Qaeda is mainly convenient myth.

I've been in their tents and seen their hawks. But they also like their Louis Vuitton and religious fundamentalism.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

From what I saw from a recent documentary, the Saudis are nomads who happened to come by oil. They are never so happy as when they are out in a desert with their tents hunting with hawks. Or in a Mayfair casino. Maybe Hermes is right and Al Qaeda is mainly convenient myth.

Al-Qaeda is a myth in terms of how it is often portrayed in the media with Osama Bin Laden controlling a terrorist organsiation that has infiltrated all corners of the world. It`s hard to explain to people who grew up with specific Army structures even within our own home grown terrorist groups. It`s like this though. Imagine if every county in ireland had it`s own terrorist group who had developed in response to local conditions but who shared a broadly similar ideology (but it was still located in the locale in each individual case) now throw in a prominent inter-county terrorist with access to huge funds who was willing to share funds and expertise with any of the 32 individual terrorist groups as long as they were willing to cooperate with him. Sometimes these groups would be willing to support Bin laden sometimes they`d tell him to go and shite. Sometimes they`d be open to his influence othertimes they`d not be. He might influence the actions of any of these groups at anytime but at no time would he controlling them all or even more than a small number of them.

A difficult enemy to defeat if you can find him. And there are more than one Osama Bin Laden too I'd say ... Was Ireland ever anything like that with the warring chiefs and clans? If it was anything like that the English found a way around it.

They should be experts on counter-terrorism at this stage.