Wednesday April 16, 2008
Europe's Road Ever More Difficult
Several pieces today tie together to form a disturbing mosaic. The first two are the growing threat of radical Islam in Great Britain and the penetration of the structures of several elite universities there.
The second is the new report by the NEFA Foundation on the Muslim Brotherhood structure in Belgium.
The most disturbing to me is a report that Britain's Home Secretary Jaqui Smith believes the police are being overwhelmed by the growing threat of radical Islam in Britain.
"There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots," she said.
And she warned the menace of Islamic fanatics is mounting so fast that police will be unable to cope within a year—unless they are given new powers to lock up terror suspects for longer.
At present cops can hold suspects for up to 28 days, but the Home Office wants that increased to 42 days.
"We can't wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers," said Mrs Smith. "We have got to stay ahead."
"Because we now understand the scale of what is being plotted, the police have to step in earlier—which means they need more time to put evidence together."
If they are willing to talk about 2,000 individuals and 200 plots under observation, imagine what the real scale must be.
At the same time, the Daily Telegraph today reports a new study showing that Saudi Arabia and Muslim organizations operating from there have donated 233.5 pounds (about $460 million) to eight British universities since 1995. That is almost $40 million a year.
The author of the report, Anthony Glees, warned that this will lead to "the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor" because the money is used to fund study centers that are implacably hostile to the West.
Could there be any connection between these two developments? And wouldn't it be interesting to see how much money the same countries and organizations have put into U.S. universities, and other institutions of higher education in Europe.
It is striking to me that, as this river of of dollars flows abroad for educational institutions, little is put into educational institutions in the Arab lands from which the money originates.
This begs the question, to me, of why the outside education is so important for militant groups. If the Saudis wanted a better relationship with West and true understanding, they would teach that in their own country, with well-endowed institutions to carry the message of tolerance, understanding and acceptance to the next generation.
But they don't do that. They (and the Muslim Brotherhood groups) prefer to spend their money to influence how the next generation of scholars views Islam, and, of course, it is only a certain type of Islam that can be taught with the money these patrons of universities want taught.
The result, as the NEFA report makes clear, is an infrastructure that provides the ongoing basis for the teaching of radical Sunni Islam.
Belgium now has a complete MB infrastructure that most officials do not even know exists. It influences the educational process throughout the country. Britain's main centers on Islam are controlled by the Saudis and their allies in the MB. Other countries are experiencing the same phenomenon.
When the teaching spreads over time (both there and in the United States), the result will inevitably be the acceptance and inculcation of the agenda promoted by these groups.
They go to universities because they understand that influencing the current generation of leadership is not a good use of resources. Setting the academic agenda for those who will influence policy and perceptions over the next 30 years is maximizing the return on investment.
The second is the new report by the NEFA Foundation on the Muslim Brotherhood structure in Belgium.
The most disturbing to me is a report that Britain's Home Secretary Jaqui Smith believes the police are being overwhelmed by the growing threat of radical Islam in Britain.
"There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots," she said.
And she warned the menace of Islamic fanatics is mounting so fast that police will be unable to cope within a year—unless they are given new powers to lock up terror suspects for longer.
At present cops can hold suspects for up to 28 days, but the Home Office wants that increased to 42 days.
"We can't wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers," said Mrs Smith. "We have got to stay ahead."
"Because we now understand the scale of what is being plotted, the police have to step in earlier—which means they need more time to put evidence together."
If they are willing to talk about 2,000 individuals and 200 plots under observation, imagine what the real scale must be.
At the same time, the Daily Telegraph today reports a new study showing that Saudi Arabia and Muslim organizations operating from there have donated 233.5 pounds (about $460 million) to eight British universities since 1995. That is almost $40 million a year.
The author of the report, Anthony Glees, warned that this will lead to "the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor" because the money is used to fund study centers that are implacably hostile to the West.
Could there be any connection between these two developments? And wouldn't it be interesting to see how much money the same countries and organizations have put into U.S. universities, and other institutions of higher education in Europe.
It is striking to me that, as this river of of dollars flows abroad for educational institutions, little is put into educational institutions in the Arab lands from which the money originates.
This begs the question, to me, of why the outside education is so important for militant groups. If the Saudis wanted a better relationship with West and true understanding, they would teach that in their own country, with well-endowed institutions to carry the message of tolerance, understanding and acceptance to the next generation.
But they don't do that. They (and the Muslim Brotherhood groups) prefer to spend their money to influence how the next generation of scholars views Islam, and, of course, it is only a certain type of Islam that can be taught with the money these patrons of universities want taught.
The result, as the NEFA report makes clear, is an infrastructure that provides the ongoing basis for the teaching of radical Sunni Islam.
Belgium now has a complete MB infrastructure that most officials do not even know exists. It influences the educational process throughout the country. Britain's main centers on Islam are controlled by the Saudis and their allies in the MB. Other countries are experiencing the same phenomenon.
When the teaching spreads over time (both there and in the United States), the result will inevitably be the acceptance and inculcation of the agenda promoted by these groups.
They go to universities because they understand that influencing the current generation of leadership is not a good use of resources. Setting the academic agenda for those who will influence policy and perceptions over the next 30 years is maximizing the return on investment.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday April 11, 2008
The Atomization of Terrorist Efforts
An interesting report by ABC News talks about the myriad ways terrorists are now trying to build explosives so they will be undetectable.
It reminds me of two thing. The first is that, like the drug cartels, these folks are infinitely resourceful and have an infinite amount of time and energy to focus on building these devises and perfecting them.
The cartel went from huge loads on private planes to multiple small shipments hidden in ingenious fashion as enforcement got better. It was a far less efficient way to move drugs, but one that was still profitable enough to make it worthwhile. Which brings me to my second point:
This is a sign of progress. Using a watch with an explosive devise inside is dangerous, but far less damaging than larger explosive attacks. But it is, technologically, far superior to Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing. This is a far less efficient method than killing hundreds or thousands of people at one time.
Finally, while it is certainly true that there is a focus on smaller explosive items to inflict harm, those are largely the work of smaller al Qaeda-affiliated groups or wannabes, not the old guard.
The old guard or al Qaeda Central, has made it amply clear they want to surpass, in scope and sophistication, what they did on 9/11. Just as the cartels never abandoned their efforts, over time, to return to the large shipments that were much more efficient and lucrative.
Which is why it is interesting to me that Mr. A.Q. Khan is now virtually a free man.
"No country has reacted to the foreign minister’s statement or has demanded an opportunity to question him, as internationally the AQ Khan issue is a closed chapter," FO spokesman Muhammad Sadiq said during a weekly briefing.
The godfather of the Islamic nuclear bomb, who has never been allowed to be questioned by anyone other than his ISI friends in Pakistan, not only knows how the nuclear network operates, but where all of the unaccounted for goods that he has hidden away, are.
The above statement by a government official is simply not true. Lots of people have asked to speak to him over the course of several years, to no avail.
Khan, while aging and ill, is bitter at his treatment and has never shied away from dealing either with radical Islamists or other rogue states. His primary clients, in the good old days, were Libya and North Korean. Hardly confidence-inspiring track record.
Osama bin Laden and others are in Pakistan, in easy range of acquiring whatever Mr. Khan may want to sell.
But what is even more worrisome is the whereabouts of the multiple copies of the nuclear bomb making plans that Khan had and which remain unaccounted for.
Will he give them away, sell them to the highest bidder, destroy them or use them as life insurance? We don't know. But we do know he has the knowledge, wherewithal and disposition to help those who want to hurt us.
It reminds me of two thing. The first is that, like the drug cartels, these folks are infinitely resourceful and have an infinite amount of time and energy to focus on building these devises and perfecting them.
The cartel went from huge loads on private planes to multiple small shipments hidden in ingenious fashion as enforcement got better. It was a far less efficient way to move drugs, but one that was still profitable enough to make it worthwhile. Which brings me to my second point:
This is a sign of progress. Using a watch with an explosive devise inside is dangerous, but far less damaging than larger explosive attacks. But it is, technologically, far superior to Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing. This is a far less efficient method than killing hundreds or thousands of people at one time.
Finally, while it is certainly true that there is a focus on smaller explosive items to inflict harm, those are largely the work of smaller al Qaeda-affiliated groups or wannabes, not the old guard.
The old guard or al Qaeda Central, has made it amply clear they want to surpass, in scope and sophistication, what they did on 9/11. Just as the cartels never abandoned their efforts, over time, to return to the large shipments that were much more efficient and lucrative.
Which is why it is interesting to me that Mr. A.Q. Khan is now virtually a free man.
"No country has reacted to the foreign minister’s statement or has demanded an opportunity to question him, as internationally the AQ Khan issue is a closed chapter," FO spokesman Muhammad Sadiq said during a weekly briefing.
The godfather of the Islamic nuclear bomb, who has never been allowed to be questioned by anyone other than his ISI friends in Pakistan, not only knows how the nuclear network operates, but where all of the unaccounted for goods that he has hidden away, are.
The above statement by a government official is simply not true. Lots of people have asked to speak to him over the course of several years, to no avail.
Khan, while aging and ill, is bitter at his treatment and has never shied away from dealing either with radical Islamists or other rogue states. His primary clients, in the good old days, were Libya and North Korean. Hardly confidence-inspiring track record.
Osama bin Laden and others are in Pakistan, in easy range of acquiring whatever Mr. Khan may want to sell.
But what is even more worrisome is the whereabouts of the multiple copies of the nuclear bomb making plans that Khan had and which remain unaccounted for.
Will he give them away, sell them to the highest bidder, destroy them or use them as life insurance? We don't know. But we do know he has the knowledge, wherewithal and disposition to help those who want to hurt us.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday April 9, 2008
What Does Iran Want From Latin America?
Yesterday I spoke at a program sponsored by the Hudson Institute's Latin America center on the growing ties among Iran, Venezuela, and non-state armed actors such as the FARC, and the strategic challenges these alliances pose for the United States.
The topic that dominated the discussion (the panel consisted of Brian Fonseca of FIU, Julio Cirino of Fundacion Pensar, and was moderated by Hillel Fradkin) was the reasons for Iran's multi-billion dollar investment in a region where it has no historic ties, little economic interest and only a very small base of Shite Muslims to influence.
I explored some of these economic issues in paper I did last year for the International Assessment and Strategy Center but did not really answer the question asked yesterday, which is fundamental to our understanding of the dynamics in Latin America.
The enigma is what common ground could there be between a leftist, populist leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, whose broad vision is a somewhat ill-defined, unified Latin America as Simon Bolivar dreamt of, to a radically conservative religious leader who theistic vision seems to be a world controlled by Sharia law, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
The answer suggested seemed to be two-fold: a shared hatred of the United States and a desire to make Washington as nervous as possible about as many issues as possible; and a shared view of each other's regimes as revolutionary and fighting broadly for justice or a more just world order.
What is clear is that Iran sees a reason to do this, in a rather methodical and pre-meditated fashion. Given the financial and political strains in Iran, it must be important because it has continued uninterrupted for the past five years, at least. And if it is important to Iran, then it should be important to the United States.
It is a limited range of self-interest that binds the two (Iran's influence in the rest of Latin America stems directly from pressure by Chavez for his allies-Evo Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador and Ortega in Nicaragua-to play footsie with the Iranians), but a dangerous set of circumstances.
But it also provides the hope that the impact of the self-interested mutual admiration will be limited in its impact. Many of the promised Iranian projects fail to materialize, and, while their emphasis on "soft power" in the region looks good from afar, it is not necessarily effective on the ground, where more announcements than projects occur.
Though both nations produce oil and should be awash in funds, both Venezuela and Iran are significantly over-extended financially, lessing their ability to offer their potential one of the few things that matter--cash or its equivalent in meaningful projects.
My concern is that Iran, which has little real interest in Latin America in a substantive way, is positioning its favorite quasi-state actor, Hezbollah, around the region in order to be prepared to strike the United States, should it deem such a strike necessary or desirable.
An overlap between the FARC and Hezbollah would provide more in terms of training and capacity enhancement, to the FARC. It is hard to imagine that, on the ground, unregenerate Marxists and committed Islamists, would get along very well.
But if there is anything I have learned in my years in the field, it is that the unexpected or seemingly irrational happens as a matter of course. What we project from our own experience as unlikely has little relationship to the reality that occurs.
The other worrisome factor, as I have written before, is Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, who has a history of ties to terrorist organizations (Red Brigade etc.) and of facilitating terrorist activities and contacts.
He also controls a key entry point into the Central American pipeline that carries drugs, money, weapons, illegal immigrants, stolen cars and much more. If someone wanted to move across our borders, that is the pipeline I would want to use, and few would ask any questions.
So, in the irrational and contradictory world in which we live, the populist left of Chavez and the autocratice theism of Iran can find common ground, at least for a while. And we would be well served to pay more attention to that.
The topic that dominated the discussion (the panel consisted of Brian Fonseca of FIU, Julio Cirino of Fundacion Pensar, and was moderated by Hillel Fradkin) was the reasons for Iran's multi-billion dollar investment in a region where it has no historic ties, little economic interest and only a very small base of Shite Muslims to influence.
I explored some of these economic issues in paper I did last year for the International Assessment and Strategy Center but did not really answer the question asked yesterday, which is fundamental to our understanding of the dynamics in Latin America.
The enigma is what common ground could there be between a leftist, populist leader like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, whose broad vision is a somewhat ill-defined, unified Latin America as Simon Bolivar dreamt of, to a radically conservative religious leader who theistic vision seems to be a world controlled by Sharia law, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
The answer suggested seemed to be two-fold: a shared hatred of the United States and a desire to make Washington as nervous as possible about as many issues as possible; and a shared view of each other's regimes as revolutionary and fighting broadly for justice or a more just world order.
What is clear is that Iran sees a reason to do this, in a rather methodical and pre-meditated fashion. Given the financial and political strains in Iran, it must be important because it has continued uninterrupted for the past five years, at least. And if it is important to Iran, then it should be important to the United States.
It is a limited range of self-interest that binds the two (Iran's influence in the rest of Latin America stems directly from pressure by Chavez for his allies-Evo Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador and Ortega in Nicaragua-to play footsie with the Iranians), but a dangerous set of circumstances.
But it also provides the hope that the impact of the self-interested mutual admiration will be limited in its impact. Many of the promised Iranian projects fail to materialize, and, while their emphasis on "soft power" in the region looks good from afar, it is not necessarily effective on the ground, where more announcements than projects occur.
Though both nations produce oil and should be awash in funds, both Venezuela and Iran are significantly over-extended financially, lessing their ability to offer their potential one of the few things that matter--cash or its equivalent in meaningful projects.
My concern is that Iran, which has little real interest in Latin America in a substantive way, is positioning its favorite quasi-state actor, Hezbollah, around the region in order to be prepared to strike the United States, should it deem such a strike necessary or desirable.
An overlap between the FARC and Hezbollah would provide more in terms of training and capacity enhancement, to the FARC. It is hard to imagine that, on the ground, unregenerate Marxists and committed Islamists, would get along very well.
But if there is anything I have learned in my years in the field, it is that the unexpected or seemingly irrational happens as a matter of course. What we project from our own experience as unlikely has little relationship to the reality that occurs.
The other worrisome factor, as I have written before, is Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, who has a history of ties to terrorist organizations (Red Brigade etc.) and of facilitating terrorist activities and contacts.
He also controls a key entry point into the Central American pipeline that carries drugs, money, weapons, illegal immigrants, stolen cars and much more. If someone wanted to move across our borders, that is the pipeline I would want to use, and few would ask any questions.
So, in the irrational and contradictory world in which we live, the populist left of Chavez and the autocratice theism of Iran can find common ground, at least for a while. And we would be well served to pay more attention to that.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday April 7, 2008
Chavez's Anti-Drug Crackdown
The Washington Post today brings word of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's suddenly intensified efforts to crack down on the booming drug trade through his country.
Elite troops have been dispatched primarily to blow up rudimentary airstrips near the Colombian border. New Russian-made attack helicopters are supposed to give added fire power to the forces of law and order.
The pictures and the story look good, but one wonders why, after years of indifference (at best) toward the drug traffickers using Venezuela as a favorite route, Chavez has chosen to react now.
And there is a more important question: why take measures that will do little to combat the real flow of drugs through Venezuela?
The answers to both lie in the documents recovered from the camp of FARC commander Raul Reyes, who was killed by Colombian troops in Ecuador last month.
The papers made clear Chavez's strong personal relationship with the leaders of the FARC, as well as the willingness to do drug business with the designated terrorist entity. They clearly demonstrate, too, that the FARC does a wide array of cocaine-based business, something they have long and misleadingly denied.
Despite his protestations of innocence and outrage following the release of the documents, Chavez has been faced with a severe public relations problem as a result of the disclosures. The documents leave so little to the imagination, and are authentic in their tone and content that denial has been, ultimately, futile.
So what is the next best thing, faced with the truth? Create an alternate narrative.
Despite growing concern from U.S., UN and European counter-drug officials that Venezuela has turned into a great black hole for drug shipments, primarily to Europe, Chavez has now declared himself at war with drug traffickers.
The targets, of course, are not ones that give credence to a serious effort. It would be difficult for Chavez to seriously crimp the FARC's cocaine sales, as everyone would suffer the consequences.
So, take some reporters along to blow up some old airstrips. That will certainly be a lesson to the drug traffickers. But the reaction does show one thing that brings a bit of hope.
For all his bombastic TV announcements and threats, Chavez's government cares about its international image. The image of Chavez as a terrorist-supporting, drug trafficking, authoritarian with little regard for the law is not good for business, even in his neighborhood.
So, there are points of leverage. The fact that the Embassy of Venezuela responded (however weakly, and it was a very weak response addressing none of the main issues raised in the documents) to the documents and so far unfruitful push by a few Republican congressmen to have Venezuela added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism, shows that the government feels the need to respond.
It is imperative that Latin American nations take the lead in dealing with Chavez on these issues. These are the first sign that he is seriously worried about the consequences of his actions being revealed.
Elite troops have been dispatched primarily to blow up rudimentary airstrips near the Colombian border. New Russian-made attack helicopters are supposed to give added fire power to the forces of law and order.
The pictures and the story look good, but one wonders why, after years of indifference (at best) toward the drug traffickers using Venezuela as a favorite route, Chavez has chosen to react now.
And there is a more important question: why take measures that will do little to combat the real flow of drugs through Venezuela?
The answers to both lie in the documents recovered from the camp of FARC commander Raul Reyes, who was killed by Colombian troops in Ecuador last month.
The papers made clear Chavez's strong personal relationship with the leaders of the FARC, as well as the willingness to do drug business with the designated terrorist entity. They clearly demonstrate, too, that the FARC does a wide array of cocaine-based business, something they have long and misleadingly denied.
Despite his protestations of innocence and outrage following the release of the documents, Chavez has been faced with a severe public relations problem as a result of the disclosures. The documents leave so little to the imagination, and are authentic in their tone and content that denial has been, ultimately, futile.
So what is the next best thing, faced with the truth? Create an alternate narrative.
Despite growing concern from U.S., UN and European counter-drug officials that Venezuela has turned into a great black hole for drug shipments, primarily to Europe, Chavez has now declared himself at war with drug traffickers.
The targets, of course, are not ones that give credence to a serious effort. It would be difficult for Chavez to seriously crimp the FARC's cocaine sales, as everyone would suffer the consequences.
So, take some reporters along to blow up some old airstrips. That will certainly be a lesson to the drug traffickers. But the reaction does show one thing that brings a bit of hope.
For all his bombastic TV announcements and threats, Chavez's government cares about its international image. The image of Chavez as a terrorist-supporting, drug trafficking, authoritarian with little regard for the law is not good for business, even in his neighborhood.
So, there are points of leverage. The fact that the Embassy of Venezuela responded (however weakly, and it was a very weak response addressing none of the main issues raised in the documents) to the documents and so far unfruitful push by a few Republican congressmen to have Venezuela added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism, shows that the government feels the need to respond.
It is imperative that Latin American nations take the lead in dealing with Chavez on these issues. These are the first sign that he is seriously worried about the consequences of his actions being revealed.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Thursday April 3, 2008
Saudi Arabia's Terror Finance Problem
There is little willingness to tackle the Saudis anymore on the issue of cracking down on terror finance. Intelligence services here and in Europe know most of the money for the mujahadeed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere still come from wealthy donors in the Kingdom.
Only a handful of officials, however, dare to say so publicly anymore for fear of ruffling the feathers of those who keep our gas prices above $3 a gallon and will not allow a Bible, Torah or any other non-Muslim book into their country.
The exception has been Stuart Levy, the Treasury undersecretary for terror finance issues, who recently and publicly took on the Saudis in little-noted Congressional testimony. Fortunately, the LA Times did notice.
"Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world," Levey said under questioning.
U.S. officials have previously identified Saudi Arabia as a major source of funding for extremism. But Levey's comments were notable because, although reluctant to directly criticize a close U.S. ally, he acknowledged frustration with administration efforts to persuade the Saudis and others to act.
"We continue to face significant challenges as we move forward with these efforts, including fostering and maintaining the political will among other governments to take effective and consistent action," Levey said, later adding: "Our work is not nearly complete."
One of the more interesting parts of the story, however, is not just what Stuart said, but the Saudi recognition that he was right, and that, in essence, the Saudi government has repeatedly lied to the U.S. government over the steps the Kingdom has taken to crack down.
For example more than two years ago, the Saudis assured then-Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) that the Kingdom, as promised in 2003, had set up a financial intelligence unit and a commission to oversee the financial dealings of charities, many which have had ties to funding terrorist activities.
Now, Saudi spokesman Nail Jubeir (brother of ambassador Adel Jubeir) "confirmed that Saudi Arabia has not set up the financial intelligence unit or charity commission, but said it was cracking down on the financiers of terrorism in other ways, such as making it illegal for anyone to send money outside the kingdom "without going through official government channels."'
An interesting look at how worthwhile the written assurances from the royal family are, as they had been given repeatedly on those two precise issues.
But the larger issue, to me, is the one expressed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore), the Saudi failures mean that Americans who pay more than $100 a barrel for oil are in effect bankrolling extremism because wealthy Saudis "back-door" their profits into charities that fund extremist causes.
There it is in a nutshell. Our money pays for them to pay those who want to kill us. The irony is hard to laugh at.
Only a handful of officials, however, dare to say so publicly anymore for fear of ruffling the feathers of those who keep our gas prices above $3 a gallon and will not allow a Bible, Torah or any other non-Muslim book into their country.
The exception has been Stuart Levy, the Treasury undersecretary for terror finance issues, who recently and publicly took on the Saudis in little-noted Congressional testimony. Fortunately, the LA Times did notice.
"Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world," Levey said under questioning.
U.S. officials have previously identified Saudi Arabia as a major source of funding for extremism. But Levey's comments were notable because, although reluctant to directly criticize a close U.S. ally, he acknowledged frustration with administration efforts to persuade the Saudis and others to act.
"We continue to face significant challenges as we move forward with these efforts, including fostering and maintaining the political will among other governments to take effective and consistent action," Levey said, later adding: "Our work is not nearly complete."
One of the more interesting parts of the story, however, is not just what Stuart said, but the Saudi recognition that he was right, and that, in essence, the Saudi government has repeatedly lied to the U.S. government over the steps the Kingdom has taken to crack down.
For example more than two years ago, the Saudis assured then-Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) that the Kingdom, as promised in 2003, had set up a financial intelligence unit and a commission to oversee the financial dealings of charities, many which have had ties to funding terrorist activities.
Now, Saudi spokesman Nail Jubeir (brother of ambassador Adel Jubeir) "confirmed that Saudi Arabia has not set up the financial intelligence unit or charity commission, but said it was cracking down on the financiers of terrorism in other ways, such as making it illegal for anyone to send money outside the kingdom "without going through official government channels."'
An interesting look at how worthwhile the written assurances from the royal family are, as they had been given repeatedly on those two precise issues.
But the larger issue, to me, is the one expressed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore), the Saudi failures mean that Americans who pay more than $100 a barrel for oil are in effect bankrolling extremism because wealthy Saudis "back-door" their profits into charities that fund extremist causes.
There it is in a nutshell. Our money pays for them to pay those who want to kill us. The irony is hard to laugh at.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH