Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Our Allies In The War On Terror

Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:15 PM

NYT:

Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

A German intelligence report described bank transfers made in the early 1990s by Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz and other members of the Saudi royal family to a charity that was suspected of financing militants’ activities in Pakistan and Bosnia. The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action.

Gee... maybe the Department of Justice would go after the Saudis if they were pouring money into gay marriage in not Al Qaeda.

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Hernandez 1
Hate to be master of the obvious, and I understand that everything is about the gays with you, but I think a more realistic closing line would be:

Maybe the Department of Justice would go after the Saudis if we weren't consuming obscene amounts of Saudi oil on a daily basis.
Posted by Hernandez on June 24, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Zoroastronomer 2
I think we bombed the wrong country. We should have done a Shock and Awe on Saud's fucking house. The Wahabbists are the worst of the worst. They fuck up being a Muslim for every Muslim out there. Is it too much to hope for that they have some family-borne disease like the czars that kill them all off? A pox on the House of Saud.
Posted by Zoroastronomer on June 24, 2009 at 12:27 PM
sepiolida 3
Maybe people think the slog is too gay because you take entirely non gay related things and try to turn them into gay issues (unsuccessfully). Gay posts are fine and good, but seriously...
Posted by sepiolida on June 24, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Vince 4
When will we see the streets of Saudi Arabia turned upside down?
Posted by Vince on June 24, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Will in Seattle 5
@3 is correct. Nothing wrong with having a daily quota of SLOG threads that is say 1/4 gay, just color inside the lines.

Time for a blockade of Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM
6
No they would not go after the Saudis. That is the point. The gay rights issue isn't exceptional. It is part of a broader pattern in the Obama administration.
Posted by Trevor on June 24, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Max Solomon 7
@2: i believe it's ISLAM that fucks up being a muslim.

the sauds care about preserving the sauds. that's why they lay down with wahhabist dogs.

Posted by Max Solomon on June 24, 2009 at 1:12 PM
8
Godwin's Law is the one that predicts every internet argument ending in a reference to Hitler or the Nazi's.

Can I propose (if nobody already has) a corollary?

Savage's Law: The probability approaches unity over time that ANY topic can be causally associated to gay people.
Posted by Ackham is confused by this topic on June 24, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Uriel-238 9
The thing is, the whole Bush family have been the Sauds bitches for decades, which is the primary reason we failed to properly go after Osama bin Laden during the Bush administration. It's why we, as a country, have had to proverbially bend over in submission to them and their sweet, sweet oil.

And the Bushes haven't been the only ones taking a wide diameter rectally from the Saud family. The Sauds own a good chunk of US assets and have plenty of our representatives in their pocket. That's why we're not so fierce on development of alternate energy sources. It's quite likely that Obama is forced to proverbially chug Saudi cock on a regular basis.

And sadly none of this is very gay at all.

PS: Citibank is 100% Saudi owned, so if you bank with them and can choose to take your business elsewhere, do so.

Posted by Uriel-238 on June 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM
10
From the LA Times' Josh Meyer, “Report Links Saudi Government to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say,” Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003.

“The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document. One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes ‘very direct, very specific links’ between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators ‘that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.’” Of all the hijackers, 15 of the 19 were Saudi.

@1 has it right - if we weren't so addicted to Saudi oil, we would have gone after them instead of the Iraqis.
Posted by Barbara on June 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Zoroastronomer 11
@7,

Ah, but Sufis are Muslim and they are not even CLOSE to being fucked up like the Wahabbis. And yeah, I know that Bush would never have bombed his butt buddies, the backward-ass camel fucking Sauds, but hey, a little tough love once in a while. Another thing, I wonder why AIPAC worries so much about Iran when the actual threat is the Peninsula.
Posted by Zoroastronomer on June 24, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Will in Seattle 12
@11 is right about what @7 says - it's like blaming Episcopalian Bush for what Roman Catholic Kennedy said about Talibangelist Bush Jr. Technically all Christian, but all different.

The Saudis are - were - and will always be the enemy of the free world - all of them.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM
13
Savage: why are you so bound and determined to politicize the Department of Justice? Its role is to make legal arguments, not popular ones. That sometimes means that they do things like point out that a lawsuit is barred by sovereign immunity, even if that means arguing against 9/11 families. Are you going to try and insist that you know more than the DoJ on this too?
Posted by AnonymousCoward on June 24, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Add a comment

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use