The Saudis: Which Side Are They On?
This would seem to support President Bush’s statement from last October, when in order to free up aid from the Saudis he declared: “I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort.” As jarring as it may be to contemplate the notion that the United States is providing aid to the oil-rich House of Saud, these arrests indicate that at least it seems to be paying off.
Yet nagging questions remain. Last September, Stuart Levey, the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, noted that the Saudis had not prosecuted even a single individual who has been identified by the U.S. or the U.N. as a bankroller of jihad terror. “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country,” Levey said, “it would be Saudi Arabia.”
What’s more, an undercover reconnaissance survey of mosques and Islamic schools all over the United States has found that as many as seventy-five percent of mosques and Islamic schools in this country preach jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, according to a World Net Daily report, “confirmed that ‘the vast majority’ are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.”
The Saudis fund a significant number of the mosques in this country. Warith Deen Muhammad, a prominent American Muslim leader and the son of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, explained what’s wrong with the Saudi influence in American mosques: “In Saudi Arabia it’s the Wahhabi school of thought…and they say, ‘We’re gonna give you our money, then we want you to…prefer our school of thought.” That’s in there whether they say it or not. So there is a problem receiving gifts that seem to have no attachment, no strings attached.”
But why would the Saudis be encouraging jihadist sensibilities among Muslims in the United States while arresting Al-Qaeda operatives inside the Kingdom? Abu Zubaydah, a captured Al-Qaeda operative, claimed that the House of Saud had made a deal with Al-Qaeda: financing for the jihad around the world, in exchange for immunity from jihadi attacks within Saudi Arabia itself.
The Saudis have denied this, and in any case the deal seems to be off. There have been several jihad attacks inside Saudi Arabia in recent years, but Stuart Levey is not out in left field in thinking that the Saudis continue to support terror in an enthusiastic — and effective — manner. Secret files revealed in Britain several weeks ago show Saudi officials threatening British investigators with another jihad attack on the scale of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London if they didn’t drop inquiries into corruption in their arms deals. Who is supposed to have made these threats? Prince Bandar, head of Saudi Arabia’s national security council and son of its crown prince.
In light of all this, it is likely that the 56 freshly-arrested members of Al-Qaeda are guilty in the eyes of the House of Saud not of waging jihad warfare as such, but simply of waging jihad warfare in the wrong place: inside the Kingdom. And given the Kingdom’s notoriously spotty human rights record, it is also likely that these suspects will not be offered the amenities of the Guantanamo camp about which Saudi authorities have issued complaints. And their arrests should not prevent American officials from asking tough questions about where the Saudis really stand, and what we can realistically expect from their alliance with the United States. When the Saudis refused to cut America a break on oil prices during President Bush’s trip to Riyadh in January, it should have been a wake-up call for anyone who still considered the Saudis a reliable ally in the war on terror. And this latest arrest of Al-Qaeda operatives shouldn’t lead anyone to go back to sleep, either.
|Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)” , “The Truth About Muhammad” and “Religion of Peace?” (all from Regnery — a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).|
Tuesday , March 06, 2007
Ann Coulter fired back at critics who demanded the conservative columnist apologize for comments she made during a speech in which she referred to Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards as a “faggot.”
“‘Faggot isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays,” Coulter said on “Hannity and Colmes” Monday night. “It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss,’ and unless you’re telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person.”
Coulter came under fire after delivering a speech Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,'” Coulter said.
The slur caused a firestorm of controversy over the weekend and earned condemnation from both the right and the left. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean demanded that the “Godless” author apologize for her “hate-filled and bigoted” remarks. The Edwards camp tried to capitalize on the hullabaloo by asking supporters to donate $100,000 in “Coulter Cash” to “show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire.”
Republican presidential hopefuls Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani publicly denounced the remarks.
Coulter called the whole controversy another example of the mainstream media’s “speech totalitarianism” and says she sees no reason to apologize for a joking comment that was taken out of context.
“What I was saying right there was for conservatives to not let the mainstream media describe us as anti gay and oppose Mitt Romney’s policies for being pro-gay,” Coulter said.
Coulter didn’t spare the GOP hopefuls, either.
“Apparently our top three Republican nominees aren’t that smart,” Coulter said. “And by the way, if they’re going to start apologizing for everything I say, they better keep that statement handy cause there’s going to be a lot more in the next year.”
In the uproar over Ann Coulter’s tasteless “joke” at the CPAC Conference, Bill Maher’s much more egregious call for Dick Cheney’s assassination and the applause of his audience have been ignored, as Newsbusters showed.
As for Maher, I conclude that by lamenting that the assassination attempt failed — because he concluded it would “save lives” — Maher is indeed calling for further attempts. But contrarily, if one were inclined to invert Maher’s twisted logic, one could propose that those who are not wholeheartedly in step with the war-effort are showing America’s disunity which only emboldens the Islamic terrorists to commit more car bombings etc.; thus the death of such an American anti-war advocate would “save lives”.
Fortunately, I cannot remember seeing conservatives calling for assassination of America’s liberal politicians.
Do Liberals really want to invite a return of political violence to America? Aren’t the lessons from the assassinations of Lincoln, JFK, MLK, RFK, and attempts on Ford and Reagan yet learned by the Left?
Coulter comment was almost immediately denounced by leading Republicans including most of the presidential candidates. It will be illuminating to see the response if any of Democrats to Maher’s awful comments, beginning with Barney Frank who was on Maher’s show.
Coulter Gets Results
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 30, 2006
The six imams removed from a US Airways flight last week have apparently adopted my suggestion that if they really want to protest the airline, instead of boycotting US Airways, they should start flying it frequently. The spokesman for the imams – or as I believe it’s phrased in their culture, “designated liar” – Omar Shahin, staged a protest at Reagan Washington National Airport on Monday, after which, according to the Associated Press, “he and other religious leaders boarded a US Airways flight to demonstrate their determination to continue praying and flying.”
The original six imams removed from the flight last week first attracted attention when they said prayers to Allah on traditional Muslim prayer rugs in the boarding area. After boarding, they changed seats, spreading themselves throughout the plane. They were also overheard spouting anti-American rhetoric. Witnesses said the six men appeared to be either Islamic fanatics or U.S. Army chaplains on leave from Guantanamo.
Following the lead of FEMA in keeping Americans safe, the Homeland Security Department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is investigating the removal of the imams from the US Airways flight. (Talk about coincidences – I’m currently investigating the removal of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from the Department of Homeland Security!)
Imam spokesman Shahin is a great example of why airport security ought to be profiling Arabs. Shahin’s predecessor at the Islamic Center in Tucson was Osama bin Laden’s financier and head of logistics – until he was arrested in Saudi Arabia in 2002.
Instead of aggressively distinguishing himself from his terrorist predecessor, judging by news reports, Shahin spent the five years after 9/11 denying that Muslims were behind the attacks and complaining of phony anti-Islamic “hate crimes” – as opposed to the pro-Islamic hate crimes he presumably endorses.
In 2003, for example, Shahin alleged that a woman in Arizona had thrown shoes at children at the mosque.
This is the most transparent hoax I’ve heard since, “If I did it, here’s how I would have done it.” This is like the joke about a speaker at an American communist rally opening with: “Workers and peasants of Brooklyn!” Shahin has so little insight into this country, he can’t even invent a believable hate crime.
It’s Arabs who have a thing about shoes being a sign of disrespect, not Americans. When Iraqis toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, the crowd immediately pelted it with shoes.
Shahin himself couldn’t get away from this pan-Arabic shoe fetish, adding: “The incidents of Muslims being attacked kind of shocked me in my shoes.” Note to imams trying to fabricate hate crimes against Muslims: Americans don’t share your shoe neurosis.
At Reagan National this week, rabbis joined the Muslims at the prayer protest – though one imagines they did not share this prayer from the Hadith: “And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'” In fairness, they usually save that one for the high holidays, like the “Festival of the Six Dead Jews” or “Honor Killing Week.”
Nor this one, also from the Hadith: “The Prophet said: ‘The Hour will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews. Rejoice! Rejoice in Allah’s victory!'” (Is it just me, or might some fanatic twist those words into an excuse to kill Jews?)
Also strange was that the NAACP has piped in to complain about racial profiling of Muslims. The only reason Americans feel guilty about “racial profiling” against blacks is because of the history of discrimination against blacks in this country.
What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship. After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.