I think not, W and his Daddy have too many friends over there to bomb them... but if they support terrorism... well, what did Bush say? "you are either with us or against us" and it sounds like Saudi Arabia is against us. Don't you think this sounds like Saudi Arabia is harboring and aiding terrorism? ============================= U.S.: Al Qaida funded by only 12 individuals, most Saudis WORLDTRIBUNE.COM Monday, October 21, 2002 WASHINGTON — The United States has identified the sources of Al Qaida funding and found they were fewer in number than earlier estimated. Officials said U.S. intelligence has determined that Al Qaida is supported by 12 financiers, most of them Saudis. They said the Bush administration is sharing the findings with Washington's allies in NATO and the European Union. On Sunday, Treasury Undersecretary Jimmy Gurule begins a six-day visit to European countries to coordinate efforts to freeze assets of those deemed as terrorist financiers. The countries include Denmark, which holds the EU presidency, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, Sweden and Switzerland, Middle East Newsline reported. "It is our first big break in understanding Al Qaida's financial network," an official said. "At first, the network was so big that we didn't think could find major channels of support. Now, we believe we have." The officials said the new information has fueled a renewed effort to freeze the assets of those suspected of helping Al Qaida and satellite groups. They said the information could result in the blocking of finances of industrialists of leading Gulf Arab businessmen in Asia and Europe. So far, the United States and its allies have frozen $112 million, regarded as an insignificant portion of Al Qaida's network. Gurule did not identify the new targets and denied that he was carrying a "Saudi list." He said he will discuss "high-impact, high-value Al Qaida targets" with European allies. U.S. officials have acknowledged that Washington has not obtained sufficient support from EU states against terrorist financiers. They cited the EU's refusal to deem such groups as Hizbullah or the political wing of Hamas as terrorist organizations. Officials said the EU has also been slow in acting against targets deemed as terrorists. "We want to engage in a very specific level of information on these targets where we want the European Union to take action," Gurule said. "It goes beyond general statements and requests to specific people and entities we want authorities to act against." But officials said most of the dozen financiers are Saudi bankers and businessmen who provide direct support to Al Qaida. They did not elaborate. The administration does not plan to confront Saudi Arabia with the new information. But officials said the United States plans to first form a coalition that will ensure that Europe will be off-limits to Saudi financing. On Friday, the Washington Post said Al Qaida has relied on human couriers to fly cash from Saudi Arabia to agents around the world. The newspaper said U.S. intelligence followed the couriers and helped identify the money trail. "In the next few weeks, you will hear cries of pain, mostly from Saudi Arabia," the senior official was quoted by the Post as saying. "If the Saudis don't take action against these people, we will at least make sure they cannot travel outside their home country and cannot do business as usual around the world."
If these guys are supporting Al-Queda, then we need to take them out and take them down HARD. But to say we should bomb a country because 12 people are supporting something is quite vicious. I shudder to think when we became so inhuman as to think the death of so many people meant so little. From an economic standpoint, I hope the US and the west are extremely specific in terms of freezing assets in the markets. If we create a panic in the Saudi's/ Arabs minds it could set off a chain of selling that would adversely affect the financial markets substantially. Saudi's alone have close to 500 billion dollars invested in the US, much of it in equities and real estate. *500 Billion dollar figure taken from CNBC analyst, so I can't 100% vouch for the number
Khan is right... I think Tom Clancy and his Rainbow 6 multinational swat team is the way to go.... Kill them covertly.....and let the world know that anyone that supports terrorism is a target. DD PS. The saudis have already pulled out of our markets, they are the primary reason that the markets went down. Not all of them pulled out, but a significant number did.
The primary reason markets went down is that companies weren't making as much money. Even if Saudi holdings were significant enough to make an impact, which they are likely not, that would remain the primary reason. Anyway, the US should abandon the corrupt crappy Saudi dynasty. They are the problem and not the solution.
as long as W and his Daddy have their hands DEEP in the pockets of the saudi's, that will never happen. oh, and they have a lot of oil, too...
This statement demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the situation. We aren't going to do anything to Saudi Arabia so long as the UN needs us to have bases there. Once Saddam Hussein is gone then we will no longer need Saudi land to use as a staging area. Then all bets are off. Iraq has a lot of oil, and we're looking to bring about regime change. Should the Saudis be supporting terrorists we won't be afraid to smack them around because of oil. You have to time these things strategically.
There is probably more proof that the Saudi private citizens have supported terrorism than Saddam. This begs to question Bush Jr priorities. I only see the US pressuring Saudi Arabia. I don't expect the Saudis to deliver any of their misbehaving citizens to the US (or the world courts). They want to take care of the matter themselves, which may or may not be to the liking of the US or the world. Under no circumstance, do I see the US using military force against the Saudis. The fall of 2004 appears to be the best time strategically, wouldn't you say?
Attorney: President Clinton...what about this blue dress? Clinton: Look over there...to Iraq...check out that explosion!!!!
Of course not...the UN has mandated that there be bases in Saudi in order to keep tabs on Saddam. That isn't a US policy...it is a mandate from the United Nations...you know the same UN that the left wants to ask permission before we cross the street. We'd hate to make the French mad by taking care of business.
The Saudi government is clearly more humane than Saddam's dictatorship, give or take the public beheadings like the two that were held today, according to the BBC.
Republicans and cliched Clinton jokes on the right. Democrats and cliched oil and daddy references on the left. Thank you.
Sir...can I just take a number and come back when it is close to my time to be served? Both lines are so long.
Refman: I love it! We have supported Saudi all these years because the UN required it. Refman is sticking to the Republican line that nothing we do in Saudi Arabia or Iraq has anything to do with oil. I wonder if he could actually believe that? For those with a longer memory-- When we first stated building support for Gulf War I, Bush I portrayed it initially as a war to prevent Sadam from controlling more oil. When the public shrugged at spilling American blood for oil, they sought another reason. Focus group testing showed that a large majority of Americans supported a war against Iraq back at that time if they thought Sadam had nuclear weapons and was about to atack the US. They have stuck to message ever since.
So let me get this straight...you're elluding to alleged subjective responses to the UN's mandates by fellow posters while simultaneously stating that the US has no choice but to follow this particular UN directive, which happily coincides with US objectives, when the US government has shown itself ready and willing to ignore UN mandates, world opinion, and possibly even Congress in pursuit of it's own agenda!?!?!? I must have thiis wrong...he said, knowing this will be a straight line for one of ref's last line out-rolleye thingie staples...
You actually do have this wrong. I am not a fan of the UN asking us to establish military bases in Saudi Arabia. I do not believe that they are our friends, and every day our troops are there they are in harms way. Yours was a honest question...no rolleyes needed.
Hey genius!!! The UN, in fact, DID require us to establish a military base in Saudi Arabia to use as a staging area for the Gulf War. This war, in case you "conveniently forgot" was signed off on by the other UN members and many of them participated. I love how you go out and state that we should go with the UN...but for some reason you abandon that policy as it pertains to the Gulf War. It defies all logic that you actually believe all the garbage that you spew forth onto this BBS. Right now...not later but NOW...turn off your computer (it uses electircity which in most cases in generated by oil)...never drive a car again...etc etc etc. We are DEPENDANT upon oil. It is the life's blood of our economy in the information age. We can do very little without it. It wasn't controlling more oil...it was controlling over half the world's supply!!!! Maybe you are ok with a dictator who exterminates his own people being able to extort the world for oil...but I am not.
