Posted on 10/14/2004 5:25:43 PM PDT by politicalvanguard.com
Britain's financial institutions have been ordered to freeze any funds held on behalf of the terror group which beheaded Ken Bigley.
Chancellor Gordon Brown said "any funds which they hold for or on behalf of the group Jama'at al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad" should be frozen.
The group is led by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant who has reportedly personally beheaded several hostages, including American Nick Berg.
(Excerpt) Read more at sky.com ...
give the money to the families or better yet, give it to Israel.. that would be a hoot.
Shouldn't this have been done the first time the dirtball's name made the news? About two years ago?
No kidding. Unbelievable.
Brits too busy "voting" for sKerry to TCB...SHEESH!
This just drives me nuts. Why should anyone have to order these funds frozen at this late date? Perhaps I'm missing the fact that this person and his funds just came to light, but it seems these funds should have been frozen years ago.
Defunding terrorism is the best way to end it. Nations that support terrorism should have their funds frozen and their ability to carry on international trade eliminated.
Large sums of money going in and out of the middle-east should be reviewed constantly. Lists of bonified concerns should be made, and those not bonified should have their funds confiscated.
The west plays silly games with financial dealings when they could mop up this type of problem fairly quickly.
Nope. It should have been done the minute our intelligence people became aware of his terrorist activities. It should have been done to all terrorist and terrorist-supporting organizations. Instead, we are seeing weakling western states offering up millions in ransom and crawling to terrorists to beg for their mercy to hostages.
You want to stop the flow of Saudi oil?
For every Churchill, there are a thousand Chamberlains.
Uh..to Israel? Why?
Bears repeating...
Shouldn't this have been done the first time the dirtball's name made the news? About two years ago?
Shouldn't this have been done the first time the dirtball's name made the news? About two years ago?
Shouldn't this have been done the first time the dirtball's name made the news? About two years ago?
Shouldn't this have been done the first time the dirtball's name made the news? About two years ago?
Sieze don't freeze!
Just to piss off the Islamofacists...mean-spirited I know, but the thought of sticking a finger in their eye brings me great joy. Another idea might be to invest it in Hog futures.
The Saudi nation is ruled by a king and his family. Oil revenues are shared with the populace, but as I understand it, the funds are desminated by royals. I'm not sure how all the funds are desiminated throughout the nation, but the royals provide funding to many concerns.
In our nation the social security system or the welfare system distributes funds to tens of millions of people. Does that mean that the social security system or the welfare system would be supportive of terrorism, if one of, or a group of social security recipients carried out an act of terrorism?
I do not believe that the Saudi family sought out, or knowingly funded people they knew were intent on taking down the WTC Twin Towers. I do believe that Saudi Royal funds did wind up in the hands of some objectionable people, some very wicked people. I believe the fact is that a majority of Saudi Arabian people recieve funds from the royal family in round about ways.
The Saudi family has known the Bushes for a long long time. I wouldn't be surprised that Saudi family members have been schooled in the U.S. I do not buy into the idea that the Saudi government knowingly sponsers terrorists intent on killing U.S. citizens.
Until I see some direct proof to refute this, that's what I believe.
The truth is, Saudi Arabia would be in dire straights in short order, if the United States were to quit purchasing it's oil. The national income has been declining over the years. Today the royals are more vulnerable to an unhappy populace than ever before.
To damage their relations with the U.S., would be almost certain calamity for the royal family. For that reason alone, I don't see them knowingly turning on the U.S.
Smart move on their part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.