[Vision2020] US Security&Ports+Terrorism,Saudi Arabia&9/11=??

Sat Feb 18 16:09:54 PST 2006

Tom et. al.

Just yesterday I was pointing out to a friend that the nation state as we
have understood it is being deconstructed, but of course being maintained in
"theory" with increasing monitoring and control over its subjects, for its
extreme usefulness in controlling the peasants, i. e. those who are not in
prominent positions of power in the global marketplace.

That last sentence implies a tome or two of analysis, but...

The fact that there is such an increasing foreign ownership of US assets is
an expression of the deconstruction of the nation state in favor or a
globalized economic order that favors the free flow of capitol and goods as
a principle that overrides the possible regulation of business that separate
nation states may impose based on other values.

The "War on Terror" is a excellent ruse to distract or gain the compliance
of populations in numerous nations, while the masters of the new global
economic order work out their plan.  It is clear that the commercial
interests of global trade access to US ports are more important than US
national security from the point of view of stopping a terrorist attack at a
US port.  Securing our ports from terrorism would slow down trade and
economic activity, so the bottom line is capitalism trumps national
security, on this one issue.

Does this sound too oversimplified and conspiratorial?

Consider how the US government treats Saudi Arabia, given the evidence that
Saudi Arabia has such damning connections to supporting and funding anti-US
Islamic terrorism.

Do we force Saudi Arabia to protect the national security interests of the
USA in the so called "War on Terror?

Is the fact that Saudi Arabia has invested close to a trillion dollars into
the US economy (with deep pockets to lobby the US Congress), and represents
a "stable" government that assures US access to Saudi oil, have anything to
do with the fact that the US is allies with the Saudi ruling family
dictatorship, a government that denies women basic rights, tortures its own
citizens, shuts down freedom of the press and freedom to politically
organize, and allows a extreme Wahabist Islamic movement (with a Saudi
"wink" towards efforts to marginalize their power) connected to
well documented funding ending up in "Al Queda's" coffers to continue to
function, using our oil dollars, in effect, to fund anti-US terror groups,
demonstrated in the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi
nationals (could this be a coincidence?)?

The quotes immediately below are from a newspaper article (the web link to
this article is no longer active) on a classified section of a US
Congressional 9/11 report:

*Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say*
*
*  By Josh Meyer
  The Los Angeles Times

  Saturday 02 August 2003

WASHINGTON - 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."

  Said another official: "It's really damning. What it says is that not only
Saudi entities or nationals are implicated in 9/11, but the [Saudi]
government" as well.
The nearly 900-page report, released last week, concluded that a series of
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence failures preceded the Sept. 11 attacks
and that there was evidence of financial support for the hijackers by an
unnamed foreign government. U.S. officials have confirmed that that
government is Saudi Arabia, but nearly all the details supporting that claim
are contained in the lengthy redacted section of the document.
-----------------

Read about connections between Bush and the Saudis':

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=99415
-------------------------------------
http://public-integrity.org/articles/publications69.htm

>From the public-integrity website above:

Saudi Arabia very proudly takes credit for having spent at least $80 billion
in the last decade on building mosques and Islamic/Wahabist centers all over
the world, including the US. They also renovate existing mosques and bring
in imams from Saudi Arabia to spread Wahabism. They fund many Islamic
centers in colleges and universities in the US, and give big grants to
professors and students, furthering their influence.

For many years, Saudi money in the US provided an equal opportunity for
corrupting lobbyists on behalf of Saudi Arabia among Democrats and
Republicans alike. The Saudis try to pay off anybody who is in power, and
anybody who they think is going to be in power.
----------------

And in testimony before the US Senate Judiciary committee:

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/war-on-terror/2005/051108-emerson-testimony.html

The paper trail of Saudi money, funneled through a vast network of charities
and religious organizations, has led to some of the most violent terrorist
groups in the world, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas.

But in fact, much of the non-governmental network in Saudi Arabia was
created by Saudi government officials to provide an arm's length
relationship and has long been funded by Saudi government line items or by
members of the Royal Family. The Wahabist-dominated religious hierarchy in
Saudi Arabia was and is tightly controlled by the Saudi regime and Royal
Family.
------------------------------------------------------

So the evidence above suggests that just as we find a lack of prioritizing
national security to stop a terror attack at US ports because of
economic/commercial interests, the "War on Terror" internationally is not
being pursued as clearly and aggressively as we are led to believe, with US
economic and other sorts of ties to Saudi Arabia's role in terrorism
resulting in a less than consistent response.

I am firmly convinced that forces within Saudi Arabia had more substantive
connections to the 9/11 attacks than Afghanistan and surely Iraq, with Iraq
having no connection at all that is not highly speculative, as even the US
9/11 commission determined:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

It is amazing that most US citizens have not carefully read the conclusions
of the 9/11 commission, indicated in the wide spread continuing illusion
that Saddam was connected to 9/11:

http://www.9-11pdp.org/

Ted Moffett

On 2/16/06, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Outsourcing port management to a mid east interest - What could possibly
> go
> wrong?
>
> "The Bush administration defended its approval of the sale. A spokesman
> for
> the White House National Security Council, Frederick Jones, said Thursday
> that security implications of the deal were 'rigorously reviewed.'"
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/16/congress.ports.ap/index.html
>
> Let's see:
>
> 1)  Bush wants to sell federal lands to make up a portion of the national
> deficit.
>
> 2)  Troops are fighting and dying in Iraq without an exit strategy or
> defined goal.
>
> 3)  And now Bush wants to give away our port security.
>
> Well, it's not like he had sex with an intern . . .
>
> Take care, Moscow.
>
> Tom "and the voices" Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> ********************************************
>
> "In America, anybody can become president.
> That's one of the risks you take . . ."
>
> - Adlai Stevenson
>
> ********************************************
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060218/584b62c8/attachment-0001.htm