Posted on 06/22/2002 5:31:59 PM PDT by Clive
Who murdered Simon Veness, the British banker blown up in Riyadh on Thursday? The car bomb that killed him had all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, but the Saudi authorities linked it to "alcohol smuggling" among Western racketeers. This implied that Mr Veness might have been involved with bootlegging. Though no evidence has been produced for such a slur, it has not yet been challenged by the Foreign Office. Yesterday the Foreign Secretary merely expressed "concern" and promised to "seek clarification through our embassy". However unclear it may be who murdered Mr Veness, there is nothing to clarify about his innocence. The least Jack Straw can do for Mr Veness's widow and family is to clear his name.
The murder is only the latest in a series of onslaughts on a beleaguered Western community in Saudi Arabia. All have been officially blamed on Westerners. Seven, including five Britons, have been held by the Saudis for some 18 months. Several have confessed on television to causing explosions, but it has since emerged that their confessions were elicited by torture. Only last week, a Foreign Office minister, Lady Symons, went to Jeddah to plead with Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto regent, for the remaining Britons to be released or at least granted due legal process. The Saudis, though, adhere to their xenophobic conspiracy theory which blames all bombs on Western bootleggers. Rather than suppress the Islamist terrorists whom it fears, Riyadh makes scapegoats of their victims. The fundamentalist aim of driving out the infidel is furthered directly by terror and indirectly by the Saudi response.
As dominant oil producer, Saudi Arabia is vital to the West. However, its involvement in Islamist terrorism is now well- documented. Osama bin Laden himself, most of al-Qa'eda's recruits and funding all come from Saudi Arabia. Islamist militants throughout the Middle East receive Saudi money. The officially prescribed Wahabi form of Islam is itself "fundamentalist", the state press is profoundly anti-Western and American goods are boycotted. Thousands of British jobs depend on Anglo-Saudi relations, but it is counter-productive to allow commercial interests to hold sway over British policy. Public protest may be more effective than private diplomacy. Something is rotten in the Kingdom of Saud, and the British must wake up to it fast.
....Something is rotten in the Kingdom of Saud, and the British must wake up to it fast.
If something is rotten in the Kingdom of Saud then why not specifically spell it out with evidence. The above first paragraph doesn't do that. So what if they all came from Saudi Arabia. OBL was kicked out of Saudi Arabia. And if you have a hot money trail connecting the ruling government of Saudi Arabia to 911 and other terrorist activity -- then let's see it in the freeping article. Is that too much to ask?
At this stage of the game, aren't those incredibly naive questions ? Arguing that there is no Saudi connection is about as credible as a mob mouthpiece arguing that there is no Mafia.
At this stage of the game, aren't those incredibly naive questions ? Arguing that there is no Saudi connection is about as credible as a mob mouthpiece arguing that there is no Mafia.
From the 25 rules of Disinformation:
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
3....Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
You avoid the issue -- the specifics of the terrorism/Saudi money trail -- by using derogatory terms. you associate the specifics of the terrorism/Saudi money trail with charges of old news.
My comments and questions still stand -- this article and now you didn't address them. Your judgement and credibility is now clear too.
It is true that the Saudi's kicked Bin Laden out, but it was to save their own hides and not because he was an international criminal. They have done little beyond that, and are actively supporting the intifada.
So then the Saudi's should be delt with because they did the right thing -- they booted Bin Laden -- but they did it for their own self interest. That's the criteria you use. Then you go on to tell me that they support the intifada, but you give no supporting evidence. The hot money trail is not mentioned.
Are you disputing these claims? If so, how about providing your own evidence. We're not responsible for your ignorance.
Again -- I am disputing the reliability of an opinion without supporting statements. You give your opinion and then you support your opinion by saying go prove me wrong. Your opinion as stated is worthless and your judgement -- mistaking critical thought for ignorance -- says a lot about you.
If the supporting evidence is not worth mentioning, neither is the opinion.
Incredible. They are really spitting in Blair's eye.
Newsday liberal enough for you? http://www.newsday.com/news/na tionworld/world/ny-wosaud122665680apr12.story?col l=ny-homepage-more-breaking-news
"your judgement -- mistaking critical thought for ignorance -- says a lot about you." Oh FreeReign, that was so hurtful! Actually, I was saying that your critical attitude-- your scepticism, if you will--reveals your ignorance. Where have you been these last nine months? And where did you acquire the gall and presumption to think you could bury reality with sophistry? Tell you what, wherever it was, don't go back. Stay with us. We'll work with you.
Gall, sophistry, presumption -- if you really had a valid point to make you wouldn't need to rely on insults. Instead you choose to hide behind insults.
In your judgement, over the last nine months, I have not seen the articles you mention in these liberal publications, these liberal publications you in your judgement trust. Newsday/AP and other left sources should raise at the least a yellow flag of potential propaganda.
Actually I was saying your unquestioning belief in what you read from these sources shows -- using your words -- your ignorance.
If you want to talk about the specifics of these articles let me know. Else don't waste my time.
BTW our state run TV network and our own government gives money to the Palestinians, but I guess I shouldn't mention that. I certainly wouldn't want to question the PC conventional wisdom of you, Newsdays, some college professors...
You address nothing that I have said -- you refuse to address the specifics. Your logic simply states, to question conventional wisdom is to be a "revisionist type" a Nazi defending type, no specifics required. That -- your -- logic is now posted here in writing for everybody to see -- it ain't going away. You insult me and you are now even afraid to cut and paste what I have actually said in my post in your latest response. That would be too messy for you -- to deal with the specifics.
BTW Holocaust revisionists deny the Holocaust. There is not one place on this thread that I have said the Saudi's are not supporting terrorism. I have my suspicions that they are but I have not come to any conclusions. However, I will never let my dislike for the Saudi's hinder my objectivity. I do see a lot of leftist propaganda in Saudi critical articles -- something you feel very comfortable with and something, with your lack of objectivity, are afraid to discuss.
BTW, I've check available information on the Holocaust including sources cited and have long come to the conclusion that their was a Holocaust. I want you to tell me what you base your belief in the Holocaust on and how it differs from the basis of my belief.
BTW, I've check available information on the Holocaust including sources cited and have long come to the conclusion that their was a Holocaust. I want you to tell me what you base your belief in the Holocaust on and how it differs from the basis of my belief.
Then again, you certainly do want us to have open eyes, open ears, and most of all, open minds.
I'll bet if you jumped out of a 12 story window you would go SPLAT! I've never tried this myself mind you, but...
You compare similarly the evidence for the laws of gravity with the evidence that the ruling Saudi's fund terrorism -- I don't.
So then if you don't finally produce a conclusive money trail on this thread connecting the ruling Saudi's and terrorism, I trust you will be heading for a 12 story window -- THUD!
I've never cited the New Republic.
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.