Posted on 07/09/2005 4:58:19 PM PDT by CHARLITE
A GROUP calling itself "the Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe" has claimed "credit" for Thursday's deadly bombings in London. Some refer to the perpetrators of this latest horror as "an unknown group." But there is nothing mysterious about the background of the London atrocities.
First, and foremost, there is nothing secret, unknown or hidden about the prime source of financing for the terrorists: Saudi Arabia.
As the leading Saudi human-rights activist, Ali al-Ahmed, of the Washington-based Saudi Institute, puts it, "all the roads lead to Riyadh."
The Saudi kingdom continues to channel money and recruits to terror operations in Iraq and everywhere else that al Qaeda, its allies, its imitators and other supporters strike. Saudi clerics, devotees of the cult known to its critics as Wahhabism, continue to preach jihad against the world, targeting non-Wahhabi Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
Our own country has taken significant steps to curb the Saudi dedication to Wahhabi terrorism, but a great deal more remains to be done.
When she visited the desert kingdom not long ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice correctly protested against the repression imposed on democratic dissidents in that country. But she drew back from calling directly for major changes in Saudi Arabia, such as purging the educational system and state-run media of extremism and cutting off the Wahhabi clerics from state funding.
Paradoxically, Britain, although gallantly committed to the war against terrorism in Iraq, has fallen short of the United States in its investigative and judicial response to Islamist terrorism. The existence of a larger and more openly radical "Wahhabi lobby" in British Islam has led London to greater caution rather than vigilance and severity in dealing with the enemy. Not only is there no British Guantanamo, the Blair government actually intervened to get our military to release five of nine British subjects from the camp in Cuba.
Yet Britain has much greater problems with radical Islam inside its borders than the United States has. Only two weeks ago, British newspapers reported that dozens of Muslims from the United Kingdom had gone to Iraq to participate in the terrorist campaign there. (By the way, the majority of the murderers whose ranks they joined are Saudis.)
The bulk of British Muslims are Pakistanis and Arabs. While many members of both ethnic groups are peaceful, loyal residents of the country, their mosques have long been dominated by Saudi-funded radical rhetoric — and open recruiting for jihad and paramilitary activities. Although it is seldom noted in Western media, Pakistan remains the No. 1 frontline state after Iraq, in terms of bloodshed between Wahhabi-inspired extremists and other Muslims.
There is no puzzle in the dissimulation practiced by most European governments about Islamist extremism: Europe has a history of preferring peace to freedom.
Most European leaders — Britain's Tony Blair being the outstanding exception — would rather arrive at an accommodation with the terrorists than defend the freedoms under attack by violent fanatics. In this, they follow the pattern set during the 1930s, when Europeans preferred peace with and submission to Nazism in place of early and consequential resistance.
A devotion to peace over freedom is also reflected in the common cliché, heard on our shores as well as abroad, that fighting terrorism in Iraq simply breeds more terrorists. Well, opposition to Hitler led the Nazis to recruit more countries and peoples to their cause but only in the short term. Major conflicts always produce serious opposition; that is why they are called wars and not misunderstandings.
Nazism and Japanese imperialism vanished as threats once they were significantly defeated; fighting them did not strengthen them, once the real battle was joined. But inflicting an authentic defeat on the terrorist enemy means carrying the struggle to its heartland in the Middle East.
The answer to the crime of London will come in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries where Islamist extremism perverts the Muslim mind, and it will come through force no less than reason. There is no other path.
Stephen Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism (http://www.islamicpluralism.org) in Washington, D.C
Char
I heard on the radio that the had identified the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks in London as three high members of Al Qaeda, all from Syria.
Saudi Arabia. Still, the LEADER of global terrorism. #1 in funding of terrorists in over 100 countries.
Why does GWB STILL say "the Saudies are our friends"?
"the Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe"
I guess the "secret" is out.
Now they'll have to be a "Double Secret".
Wonder if they have a secret handshake, now a double secret handshake.
What a bunch of morons. These are simply evil people. Scratch people; monsters.
They will name a thousand reasons why we should all die. But there is really only one and that is that we are still breathing.
GOD Bless England.
Very carefully worded disinformation.
Yes, much of the money and organization comes from Saudi Arabia, as SA is home to millions of wealthy fundamentalists. This does not mean that the SA government is itself behind the attacks, although factions within it are probably involved. The overthrow of the Saudi royal family is high on the Islamists' list.
"Why does GWB STILL say "the Saudies are our friends"?"
Because we need their oil. And perhaps the hope as time goes by they will actually crack down on all radical Islamic groups in their country in a big way. Unless we find solid and reliable long lasting substitutes in the way of oil and it's fractions and refined finished products elsewhere, GW and future presidents must walk through the tulips "holding their hand".
[[In this, they follow the pattern set during the 1930s, when Europeans preferred peace with and submission to Nazism in place of early and consequential resistance.]]
In other words, nothing has changed in Europe. They are still f$ing cowards just like they were back in the 1930's.
It was a rhetorical question. I'd prefer he just call them scumbags...that we have to deal with for a (hopefully) very limited period of time.
Honesty is the best policy.
Woulda been nice to see him invade Saudia Arabia and glom that oil.
Oh well...............
well said.........agree.
Maybe we'll get to the point of just nuking enough of the saudies and just take the oil and distribute and sell it to the rest of the world.
Are we aware of the history of Aramco, the American/English consortium that started the discovery and extraction of oil from the Saudi's. We found it, we got it out of the ground. The Saudi's couldn't do diddley.
Maybe we'll get to the point of just nuking enough of the saudies and just take the oil and distribute and sell it to the rest of the world.
Hi. We call our planet Earth, what is the name of your planet?
We have one moon, how many do you have?
Our sky is blue, what's the color of our sky?
Are we aware of the history of Aramco, the American/English consortium that started the discovery and extraction of oil from the Saudi's. We found it, we got it out of the ground. The Saudi's couldn't do diddley. Aramco -- Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Online ArticleAramco Oil company founded by the Standard Oil Co. of California (Chevron) in 1933, when the government of Saudi Arabia granted it a concession. Saudi Arabia assumed full control in 1988. The SA fields are already wired for detonation in case of attack. Nuking SA would only plunge the whole world into a war for oil supplies. The OPEC nations would immediately cut their supplies to us. SA also supplied the oil for the first gulf war. By 2010-2012 we will be importing 90% of our oil. If you are going to start nuking countries for oil you had better be ready to kill a couple billion people and expect many of yours to be killed. When its over there still will not be enough oil and if we win we will have to occupy half the world. I don't think your solution is logical.
"It was a rhetorical question. I'd prefer he just call them scumbags...that we have to deal with for a (hopefully) very limited period of time. Honesty is the best policy.
Woulda been nice to see him invade Saudia Arabia and glom that oil."
Roger. heh heh heh, Imagine the POTUS making a speech and actualy saying that. The world uproar. How dare he say such a thing.
Very good observation, and an element of the situation that is often overlooked. A democratically-elected government in SA could produce a singularly unfavorable result.
It is a short flight from England to Syria. Time for some RAF bombing.
Frankly, the Saudi royals deserve overthrowing about as much as any group of rulers in history. Unfortunately, as you point out, their being removed does not guarantee that the replacement would be an improvement. We really don't want Osama or his ilk in control of the Saudi oil fields.
When push comes to shove, you won't either as long as you can go to work, get a paycheck and buy groceries and watch TV. America didn't start the insanity, the insane Islamofascist Muslim scum did. Perhaps you're right, I'm a vast right wing paranoid. I think we're right and they're wrong.
"Our sky is blue, what's the color of our sky?" Huh?
Blue, green, purple, orange, yellow, blue-green? Red sky at night? Purple haze?
"The SA fields are already wired for detonation in case of attack."
Not necessarily true. No documented evidence of this. It may be an urban myth. Even if true, it could be sidestepped. Nothing is easy.
Perhaps a crunch is coming anyway no matter how "nice" and diplomatic we are. Between the insane Islamofascists and the treasonous 5th columnist left cadre of college professors, "entertainers", the MSM and esteemed leaders like Teddy, Hillary, Schumer, Durbin, etc., et al, the smelly stuff is going to be in the fan and fire anyway most probably.
If there is a nice peaceful, workable solution between Islamic fascism and fundamentalism and Western civilization, fine, I'm all for it, but I'm a little more cynical that that. I hope I'm wrong and you're right. We'll see.
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.