Looks like Donald Trump has been proven right. What say you, GOP?
Once again, the biggest exporter of terrorism in the World, refuses to accept responsibility for it’s own people.
Via The New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.
Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.
Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.
The administration, which argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas, has been lobbying so intently against the bill that some lawmakers and families of Sept. 11 victims are infuriated. In their view, the Obama administration has consistently sided with the kingdom and has thwarted their efforts to learn what they believe to be the truth about the role some Saudi officials played in the terrorist plot.
“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.
President Obama will arrive in Riyadh on Wednesday for meetings with King Salman and other Saudi officials. It is unclear whether the dispute over the Sept. 11 legislation will be on the agenda for the talks.
It is a well-known fact, that the Saudi’s were involved with the 9/11 attacks. It was basically financed by low-level members of the Government there. The Al-Qaeda terrorists are Sunni Muslims. The fact that the United States Government is siding with those who wink at terrorism and then allow it to happen, says much about this administration and about our Government in general.
I have never really have put too much stock into what Alex Jones says; but this, this is blatant and it should be observed by those who vote. This is where I do not understand President Obama, he claims to be doing everything to destroy ISIS. But, yet, he will not allow this bill to pass? Something is amuck here, horribly amuck.
This is what happens, when you do not take Terrorism and Immigration; and the connection between the two, seriously.
Via the Daily Mail:
Cowering under desks and running for their lives, this is the terrifying moment passengers were caught up in a suicide bomb attack at Brussels Airport today in a series of blasts that have killed at least 34 people and injured 170 across the city.
Witnesses described apocalyptic scenes with blood and ‘dismembered bodies everywhere’ after two blasts rocked the terminal at around 8am (7am GMT), killing at least 14 people and injuring dozens of others.
Then 79 minutes later at 9.19am, at least 20 people were killed and scores injured, some critically, when a blast hit a Metro station just 400 metres from the EU headquarters in the city centre.
There were also reports the Tihange nuclear power plant, around 90km from the capital, is being evacuated of all non-essential staff as Belgium raised security to its maximum level.
At the airport, there were reports of a firefight between police and the attackers who shouted in Arabic moments before detonating their bombs.
An unexploded suicide vest was later found in the rubble and a Kalashnikov rifle beside the body of a dead terrorist.
This afternoon, Russian media claimed Muslim convert brothers Ivan and Alexey Dovbashi from Belarus and compatriot Marat Yunusov may have been behind the attacks. The trio are said to have fought for ISIS in Syria.
The blasts, which detonated near a Starbucks and several check-in desks, sent shockwaves through the terminal building, shattering windows and knocking roof tiles off the ceiling as terrified passengers ran for their lives.
The explosions, coming just four months after the Paris attacks, have left countries around the world reeling, with security services placed on high alert, flights cancelled, Eurostar services suspended and France’s border with Belgium shut down.
Two suspects were arrested a mile from the Maelbeek metro station at around 11am as hundreds of troops and police flooded the streets of Brussels in the hunt for members of the terror cell.
Soldiers have been also been deployed at the airport and other key locations across the capital.
The bombings come just a day after the Belgium Interior Minister warned of possible revenge attacks after the arrest of Paris massacre suspect Salah Abdeslam in the city on Friday.
Videos and images:
Where it happened:
Maybe now Europe will take terrorism seriously. Donald Trump had better start boning up on this; because he will be asked about it. As much as I disagree with her, on many, many issues; namely who she is supporting for President —- Michelle Malkin did have a point in this book here:
It is time that the United States got real about these people. It is time that we clamped down on Immigration; legal or otherwise, and start tracking who comes here and where they come from and if they come from areas prone to terrorism, they should be tracked, and their every last move should be documented. Because terrorism is not a political pawn for the Republicans; just ask those killed in San Bernardino, California.
I hear alot of this, “Sending Prayers” to address this situation. The thought is nice and all; but we need more than just prayers — we need action, Military action. We need Military action, with a plan to win the fight and get in there, kill these people and get out. This is not a Neoconservative position. This is a position of someone who wants to see our Republic defended and protected. I dare say that anyone, and I mean anyone; left, right, or whatever politically — that says that we ought to just stand aside and do nothing — they are the ones who are anti-American and pro-terrorism. There is a fine line between Wilsonian Military occupation and defending the Republic from terrorist attacks. I know the difference.
This whole idea of blaming America for terrorism is idiotic at best. America has made mistakes; that is true; Iraq is proof of that. But, does that justify this sort of terrorism? No, it does not. This is why I disagree with the Paleoconservatives on this issue. Because they want to blame America for terrorism! If they are not doing that; they are spouting moronic conspiracy theories on just about everything. Terrorism is not a illusion; it is real and it will be coming here, if that United States does not get a clue about Islam, and start making plans on how to thwart those who are radicalized, before more people are killed here.
Again, this isn’t about neoconservative Wilsonian foreign policy; this is about protecting the Republic. Because terrorism is no joke and if the right; all of it’s various factions, does not get a clue about this — things are going to get worse, much worse.
This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)
This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:
Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.
First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.
It is this part here that really sticks out:
Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.
The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?
And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.
Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.
This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:
Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.
I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.
Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.
The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?
I saw this last night and because I was a bit tired, I did not write about it. So, I am doing it now. I have to admit; I laughed about this one. The very people who are funding ISIS and Al-Qaeda are now going to try and form “an alliance” against these very groups. That, my friends, is funny.
The Story via NBCNews.com:
Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that 34 nations have agreed to form a new “Islamic military alliance” to fight terrorism.
The announcement published by the state-run Saudi Press Agency said the coalition is being established because terrorism “should be fought by all means and collaboration should be made to eliminate it.” …
The new counterterrorism coalition includes nations with large and established armies such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt as well as war-torn countries with embattled militaries such as Libya and Yemen. African nations that have suffered militant attacks such as Mali, Chad, Somalia and Nigeria are also members.
Saudi Arabia’s regional rival, Shiite Iran, is not part of the coalition. Saudi Arabia and Iran support opposite sides of in the wars raging in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia is currently leading a military intervention in Yemen against Shiite Houthi rebels and is part of the U.S.-led coalition bombing the Sunni extremist ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Here’s a real kicker:
Iraq and Syria, whose forces are battling to regain territory taken by ISIS and whose governments are allied with Iran, are not in the coalition.
Ed Morrissey observes the following:
Seeing Iran and Saudi Arabia on the opposite sides of a regional conflict is obviously nothing new. However, ISIS is a Sunni phenomenon, not a Shi’a group. They attack Shi’ite mosques within their reach, which is one reason among several that Iran has provided resources and military personnel to fight ISIS in Iraq’s Sunni-held areas. Iraq may be a client state of Iran more than in the past, but it needs to find ways to get the Sunni tribes allied with Baghdad to some extent if Iraq is to defeat ISIS in its own territory. The obvious partner for that would be Saudi Arabia, and for Saudi Arabia, the government in Baghdad is essential to that counter-terrorism fight too … if that’s what the priority truly is. Clearly, the new alliance has other priorities.
The Saudis aren’t the only entity nominally in the anti-ISIS fight with a curious set of priorities, either. Russia has escalated its diplomatic and military clash with Turkey (also in the Saudis’ new alliance) by bombing targets near Turkey’s borders to target anti-Assad forces there.
The Russians have other priorities, too. Their first priority is to prop up Assad. Turkey’s first priority is to depose Assad. Iran wants to prop up Assad too, but they’re more interested in expanding the grip of Shi’a Islam in the region. The Saudis and their new alliance have as their first priority to boot Iran out of Yemen and roll back both Shi’a and Iranian influence in the region.The only players that actually have ISIS as its first priority are the Kurds and the US, the latter of which has withdrawn from leadership in the fight and the former of which are the only effective force in the field against ISIS. And the latter won’t directly support the former with arms and material, but insists on working through Iran-based Baghdad instead.
Chuck Baldwin, in one of his most recent columns observes the following at Newswithviews.com:
ISIS is composed of mostly radicalized Saudi Arabian Sunni Muslims. The goal is to dispose of President Assad’s government in Syria as a stepping stone to conquering both Syria and Iran, thus turning those Shia Muslim nations into Sunni Muslim nations. The result of which means Saudi Arabia’s King Salman will become the de facto king of the entire Middle East. It would also mean that King Salman (already the richest man in the world) would single-handedly control the oil of the entire Middle East. And as everyone should already know, King Salman is in the harlot’s bed with virtually the entire western banking and petroleum worlds.
Neocons and globalists in Washington, D.C., are using the Shia Muslim people as the proverbial straw man to topple the governments in Iran and Syria, because those Shia Muslim nations care absolutely nothing about getting in bed with the international traders who want to further enrich themselves from the profits that can be made in those countries. The only one who is seriously making war against ISIS is Russia’s Vladimir Putin. And his efforts against the Sunni terrorists began but just weeks ago.
The refugee crisis is a tool of globalists to destabilize the West and help usher in a global Police State. Again, the goal is a global economic system. The Federal Reserve has taken the U.S. and European economies to the brink of collapse. The only thing that globalists can do to circumvent this inevitable collapse is create global panic, global war, and a global Police State. A Europe and America invaded with angry Muslims is just the antidote.
Please understand that the vast majority of refugees are NOT terrorists. They are persecuted Muslims and Christians (and others) who are literally fleeing for their lives. But there is no question that CIA-backed Sunni terrorists have infiltrated these refugees.
Ask yourself, why would refugees seeking safety and protection in other countries want to murder hundreds of citizens within those countries? They know this would completely alienate the country against them and only serve to further endanger the lives of their families. The attacks in Paris were NOT committed by refugees; they were committed by CIA-backed, Saudi-backed, Mossad-backed, Turkey-backed, MI6-backed ISIS terrorists.
Even though the majority of refugees are doubtless harmless people who did not want to leave their homes and did so only for their very survival–and with the knowledge that western operatives have created a radical Muslim Frankenstein–and given the fact that our federal government is making no attempt to vet these refugees, it is foolish for states to accept them. Governors are right to refuse. (If the U.S. government was truly behaving in the interests of peace and was not an active participant in creating war and instability in the Middle East–and thus creating the refugee crisis to begin with–it would be a different story.)
In addition, how did those terrorists successfully pull off these coordinated attacks? How did they get fully-automatic rifles and bombs into Paris? These sand people are NOT that sophisticated. They do NOT have those kinds of connections. Do you think you could successfully get a group of people together and smuggle dozens of automatic weapons and explosives into a European country–and then successfully coordinate a large-scale attack in a high-security major downtown city? The only people capable of such a thing are Special Ops military personnel. In other words, ISIS had help, folks–a LOT of help.
So, now, the Saudis are going to try and stop the group that they help start and now fund? Can you say kabuki theater? Ed Morrissey say this is what happens when America leads from behind; however, I have a different take. This is what happens when America invades a country based on outright false information propagated by a corrupt President and Vice-President. This is also what happens when a status of force agreement is broken by Iraqi President and when a President tries to placate his left-wing of his own party and pulls out of a Country too fast.
However, the fact remains, and the neocons, like Morrissey will not accept is that if we had just kept our noses out of Iraq, we would never even be here. But, now, we are and we’re stuck with this mess. Thanks Neocons, ya jerks.