Skip to comments.U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers
Posted on 09/16/2007 6:43:09 AM PDT by SJackson
U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda's Coffers ABC News: The Blotter September 11, 2007 5:40 PM http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/us-saudis-still.html Brian Ross Reports:
Despite six years of promises, U.S. officials say Saudi Arabia continues to look the other way at wealthy individuals identified as sending millions of dollars to al Qaeda.
"If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia," Stuart Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury in charge of tracking terror financing, told ABC News.
Despite some efforts as a U.S. ally in the war on terror, Levey says Saudi Arabia has dropped the ball. Not one person identified by the United States and the United Nations as a terror financier has been prosecuted by the Saudis, Levey says.
"When the evidence is clear that these individuals have funded terrorist organizations, and knowingly done so, then that should be prosecuted and treated as real terrorism because it is," Levey says.
Among those on the donor list, according to U.S. officials, is Yasin al Qadi, a wealthy businessman named on both the U.S. and U.N. lists of al Qaeda financiers one month after the 9/11 attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at imra.org.il ...
....but, but, but..... “The Saudis are our friends”, George Bush told me so.
The US should be exporting oil and not importing it; we simply have more of it than anybody else does. The ONLY way to get there from here as I see it is the same way you stop smoking, i.e. totally ban the importation of oil on a single day and deal with the consequences. If you managed it properly, it would mess us up about as badly as we were during WW-II for about a year or a year and a half. At the end of the year or 1.5 years, we’d be in vastly better shape than we are now and all of the rogue states and terror organizations in the world would be on life support or dead. The Saudis would be back to living in tents and riding camels.
One potentially huge part of the solution would be neighborhood work sites; in any given metro area there cannot likely be more than 20% of anybody which needs to be in one physical work site more than one day a week. The other four days they could be at neighborhood work sites which they walked to and use electrons instead of all the oil and rubber.
Just what I was thinking.When the personal “COST” of giving to terrorists goes way up,the money supply will dry up.Also cuts down on repeat doners.
Democrat supporters keep using gasoline, how unethical of them.
The banks that are found to be funneling money to terrorist should be physically eliminated from earths surface.
“....but, but, but..... The Saudis are our friends, George Bush told me so.”
As did Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon.........
You havent thought this through very well have you?
Prior to WW II this country was primarily an agricultural nation with maybe 20% of the population living in cities. Most of the population worked at home or walked to work.
Today more than 80% of the population lives in cities and the vast majority of the population commutes to work with the vast majority of the commuters driving their personal car to and from work.
If as you say we were to totally ban the importation of oil on a single day and deal with the consequences This country would go from being the economic power house of the world to being a third world basket case with food riots and people starving in the streets.
Ill deal with the terrorist thank you very much if your solution is the only other option (which it is not).
“If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia,” Stuart Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury in charge of tracking terror financing, told ABC News.
So level the country, first the oil fields. Freeze their accounts and name them a terror state.
we should send in black ops teams to kill them.
One of the reasons Bush has lost so much popular support for the war is he has not fought it to win - no holds barred - and I think many have sensed that. Here is another test of the Bush doctrine announced after 9/11 and it appears he really didn’t mean it in all cases.
We don’t have more of it than anyone else. Our production peaked decades ago.
Saudi Arabia has always been the real problem.
It has long since been the time for “plausible deniability” assassinations of such men. “Natural causes” and “accidents” could wipe out a few dozen, and put a major crimp in the financing of al-Qaeda.
Since we have relatively free access to Saudi, this should have been done long ago. And US policy only prohibits the assassination of foreign “leaders”.
And these are our trusted allies?
And we continue to fill the Saudi coffers.
It shopuld be evident to anyone but a blind man that the Muslims are intent on taking over the world, just as they were back in the 700’s.
We should find our own oil sources and alternative fuels, amd expel every single Muslim in the west back into the waterless wastes of the Saudi Deserts where they belong.
“One of the reasons Bush has lost so much popular support for the war is he has not fought it to win - no holds barred - and I think many have sensed that.”
I am a conservative.
I am a veteran.
My support for the Vietnam war waned when it became apparent to me that the politicos were really not interested in doing what it took to win it—political consequences be damned.
If we choose to fight we must be willing to do whatever it takes to win. If we are not willing to do that we might as well stay home and not waste the lives of our soldiers.
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.