Saudis threaten to unleash jihadists if the UK doesn’t back off a corruption investigation

posted at 10:09 am on February 15, 2008 by Bryan

Our friends, the Saudis. Let’s hold hands with them as we stroll around the ranch.

Saudi Arabia’s rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced “another 7/7″ and the loss of “British lives on British streets” if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

That’s a threat of war. And it’s not the freelance work of low-level hacks.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to the US for 22 years. He was thought of here by the hoi polloi as a cultured man about town. Bandar has remained influential in Washington since he left the ambassadorship, reportedly visiting the city monthly during the same period he was threatening the UK. With what in mind, is the obvious question. Was he threatening us too? His British corruption investigation is tied to proceeds from the sale of his US property holdings.

As for Bandar’s terror threats against the UK, they worked.

He was accused in yesterday’s high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have “rolled over” after the threats. He said one possible view was that it was “just as if a gun had been held to the head” of the government.

Keep in mind that there is more to Saudi terror activity than this single threat. To this day, Saudi funding props up Wahhabi missionaries and madrassahs and mosques worldwide. Saudi Wahhabi funding backs what’s left of the jihad in Chechnya and continues to fund the jihadists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, not to mention Darfur. Fifteen of the 9-11 19 were Saudi. Wherever you find jihadist activity, chances are you’ll find Saudi petrodollars fueling it and Saudi personnel leading it.

So when Bandar directly threatened Tony Blair, both men knew enough to know that the threat was all too credible.

(h/t Jihad Watch)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

When will we cut these punks loose?

Unleash suicide bombers? Well, let’s leash our support of their corrupt regime, see who backs down.

p40tiger on February 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM

You see, as I’ve been saying for years, we should have invaded that god forsaken country, just after Afghanistan was liberated from their tyrants. We had no business in Iraq, and we’ll be sorry for that mistake for many years to come, if for no other reason than our children will be footing the bill. And its a hefty one.

DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Oh how refreshing it would be for a western leader to not be afraid to provoke this rabble to war, through legitimate pursuits of justice of course – like investigating corruption.

Grafted on February 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Hmmm…. and we give these guys foreign aid?

Romeo13 on February 15, 2008 at 10:18 AM

DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Huh?

Wade on February 15, 2008 at 10:20 AM

The correct response from the U.S or Britain would be….
Go ahead, I triple Dog Dare You!!!

appst38 on February 15, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Oh, but let’s not drill in ANWR, let’s not build new refinieries, let’s not drill offshore where the Chinese are drilling, let’s not do a damn thing to rid ourselves of those miscreants.

Good God, are Democrats stupid, stupid, stupid.

drjohn on February 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM

I have this vision of Clint Eastwood playing Tony Blair, pulling out his .45 and announcing those immortal words…”Do you feel lucky, Punk?”

Alas, it is only a vision. The Western World leaders have become wussified.

PappaMac on February 15, 2008 at 10:24 AM

This one speaks for itself. No need for me to comment on the fallacy called the WoT, that we claim to be fighting.

TOPV on February 15, 2008 at 10:25 AM

He was thought of here by the hoi polloi as a cultured man about town.

So are a lot of bloodthirsty killers. Ted Bundy, for one.

Fact of the matter is, this is ultimately no different than a threat from a family of organized crime. They need to be fought. Brown will do nothing. Bring Tony back.

MadisonConservative on February 15, 2008 at 10:27 AM

If there was ever a case for drilling in offshore and in ANWR….

Hello? Anybody listening? Maverick, care to comment??

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 15, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Ah yes, our “ally” in the War on Terror.

CP on February 15, 2008 at 10:31 AM

New country alert…

What was once Great Britain is now Almighty Britanistan.

Churchill is rolling over in his grave.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 15, 2008 at 10:31 AM

No matter how much people like to say they have advanced beyond school yard diplomacy and no matter how often we teach our children to talk through your problems not fight through them. There are times when talk, respect, and kindness doesn’t work. It never works with a school yard bully. You can’t talk to school yard bullies. You can’t ignore them. You have to make a stand and demonstrate your willingness to fight if need be.

And that is what the Price was to Blair and Blair blinked and tried normal diplomacy.

Diplomacy works with people who respect each other it never works with bullies be they kids or adults.

Mich_93 on February 15, 2008 at 10:33 AM

DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Perhaps you’ve forgotten that Hussein ignored his promises to the U.N. that led to the cessation of military action in Desert Storm. That war never was over. Iran is the more immediate threat and we now are in a much better position to handle them than before. If you think we could invade SA without having the whole oil purchasing world rise up against us, you are sadly mistaken. I think our better approach is to quit selling them arms, but that is also not a clear winner,..as they will buy them elsewhere. This thread demonstrates that.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:34 AM

This is exactly why appeasement should never be an option because you create a situation where anytime a group wants something from you they threaten you with terrorism. As a whole, the civilized world has done a good job of telling jihadists that terrorism works well and they should keep it up…they will.

bojack on February 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM

wow the time is upon us to just cleanse this world of these idiots i swear.

ps.

DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM

gtfo

trailortrash on February 15, 2008 at 10:37 AM

We had no business in Iraq, and we’ll be sorry for that mistake for many years to come

Really? That containment policy was just hunky dory, huh? Oh, I get it, we should have left Saddam in power, what problems could that cause? You think somehow the problems and backlash from Iraq would have been smaller if we invaded Saudi Arabia? You think putting American troops in Mecca wouldn’t create “many years” of problems?

trubble on February 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM

This one speaks for itself. No need for me to comment on the fallacy called the WoT, that we claim to be fighting.

TOPV on February 15, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Not only are we fighting the War on Terror, our young men are fighting and dying on many fronts. To call this WoT a fallacy is disrespectful to every one of them. We are making progress in this war, a war that will continue for decades to come. The bad guys are either on the run or dropping like flies from 500 lb bombs dropping on their heads or car bombs mincing them up into a million pieces.

Terrorism will never go away. That’s why they call it terrorism. We can either sit back and do nothing, like the UK, or we can go on the offensive, like W.

By your thoughtless comments you have not endeared yourself to our troops.

Nancy.

fogw on February 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:34 AM

We broke husseins back in the first gulf war. I watched it happen. Hussein couldn’t even threaten his neighbours, as Condi Rice and Colin Powell stated before 9/11.

Anyhow, that’s my opinion, and I have a right to it.

Sorry trailortrash, don’t know what gtfo means. If its rude, don’t bother explaining.

DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM

This one speaks for itself. No need for me to comment on the fallacy called the WoT, that we claim to be fighting.

TOPV on February 15, 2008 at 10:25 AM

The WOT, or better phrased, the War on Islamism, isn’t going to be won by invading a few countries or creating a smoking hole between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Petrodollars are fueling it but so are dollars from illegal drugs. How about we start getting serious about that? United States citizens who use might consider quitting their illegal social habits, and the U.N. could teach the Afghanistan farmers how to grow other cash crops, for starters.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM

One good thing you can say for McCain, I think this kind of thing would really pi$$ him off.

melda on February 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Anne Coulter, Sept. 12, 2001

BowHuntingTexas on February 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM

We broke husseins back in the first gulf war. I watched it happen. Hussein couldn’t even threaten his neighbours, as Condi Rice and Colin Powell stated before 9/11.

So we should have lifted the sanctions and let him do whatever he wanted? Or should we have continued the sanctions? Ever read Al Qaeda’s declaration of war?

trubble on February 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM

This is HUGE, and yet ANOTHER reason to drill ANWR, build refineries, build nuclear power plants…..arghhhhh

JustTruth101 on February 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM

DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM

Well, if by breaking his back you mean allowing the Oil for Peace programs, and sanctions that were useless due to western corruption, you may be right. Strange that we had to continue overflights continually to keep him from gassing the Kurds into extinction. Also strange he was able to send payments to families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel. This thing is a many headed monster. It isn’t just one country, although I agree SA is a major player.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Well folks the obvious answer to get rid of this dependance on foreign oil controlled by mad men is to start drilling our own oil in places like ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico while vigorously pursuing viable alternative energy sources, and ethanol ain’t one of them. But of course like everything else that has to go through our congress from Social Security reform to SENSIBLE energy policies it is merely something else to be used as a political football come election time.
For 40 years politicians have used this and other topics to whine about, gripe about, promise to do something about with the same outcome. Appoint a committee filled with their friends, commission another 2 year study at a cost of millions of dollars just to arrive at the same conclusion that something needs to be done.
Clean house in congress, get some people in their that don’t know the way things are supposed to done and who will do something besides running up the deficit with their favorite pork barrel project designed to buy them votes in the next election cycle in which they will once again gripe about all that is wrong.
Vote out the incumbents. Obama wants change let’s give it to him.

Just A Grunt on February 15, 2008 at 10:54 AM

This is HUGE, and yet ANOTHER reason to drill ANWR, build refineries, build nuclear power plants…..arghhhhh

JustTruth101 on February 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM

You got it. The best way to deal with Saudi’s is to crater the price of oil. Increase supply AND reduce demand simultaneously. It’d also slow down Hugo Chavez and Putin quite a bit.

trubble on February 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM

One good thing you can say for McCain, I think this kind of thing would really pi$$ him off.

melda on February 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Yes. I would love to see Mav have a meeting with the Saudi royal. Wouldn’t it be great if JMac stared them down and said with a calm, cool voice, “My friends, f**k you. The bombing starts in 5 minutes.”?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM

fogw on February 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM

IIRC, TOPV claims to be exmilitary. She may have been a good soldier, but has not demonstrated an abundance of strategic thinking.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Just A Grunt on February 15, 2008 at 10:54 AM

You said it better and faster. One small thing though. Ethanol from corn is not going to help us. As I understand it, however, ethanol from sugar cane might. Brazil has done some really good things in terms of energy independence and I think sugar cane ethenol was a big part. I confess I don’t know all the details, but it’s worth looking into.

trubble on February 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM

You got it. The best way to deal with Saudi’s is to crater the price of oil. Increase supply AND reduce demand simultaneously. It’d also slow down Hugo Chavez and Putin quite a bit.

trubble on February 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Look at the current presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle. It ain’t gonna happen, and when the donks pick up more seats in congress, it becomes even less likely. Our political situation does not create optimism.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Yes. I would love to see Mav have a meeting with the Saudi royal.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Perhaps Mr. Pickett could accompany McCain?

sleepy-beans on February 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM

trubble on February 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM

I live in the Corn Belt. Ethanol is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated, and I’m not sure about the rest of the biofuel program, either. However, I think technology is the way to go. Eventually, we’ll hit on something worthwhile. But, my neighbors who have invested heavily in ethanol production plants are in for a sad awakening. It is just another government subsidy program and we know how hard it is to get rid of those.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM

DMeNTe on February 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Oh goody. Someone let lunatics in on the last open registration. You’re friend at zFacts.com is an anti-semite conspiracy theorist. Why don’t you go peddle your Jew bashing theories at a Ron Paul rally?

The Apologist on February 15, 2008 at 11:12 AM

sleepy-beans on February 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Yeah. True dat.

“They best not come back.”

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 15, 2008 at 11:14 AM

TOPV claims to be exmilitary.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM

She also claims there is no War on Terror.

I think her insensitivity to the our brave young men shedding their blood on the front lines, behind the front lines, behind the scenes, in uniform and out of uniform, makes one give pause as to her authenticity.

As a veteran who understands the many fronts and complexities of the WoT and as a father of combatant participating in this war, I could never call this battle we are waging a fraud.

Maybe other “ex-military” people can, but not me.

fogw on February 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM

I am afraid that eventually a war will come. Let’s make sure it is on the others soil.
But if the Dems win this election, the doors will swing wide open.
*
Vote for the Dems, and they will come.

right2bright on February 15, 2008 at 11:28 AM

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I did little poking around and found this:

U.S. ethanol, which is made from corn, costs at least 30% more than Brazil’s product, in part because the starch in corn must be first turned into sugar before being distilled into alcohol. It may take the U.S. a few more decades to bring the cost of ethanol down to 80 cents a gallon — equivalent to Brazil’s most efficient producers — according to the U.S. Department of Energy

Paging Bobby Jindal, Governor Bobby Jindal…

trubble on February 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Hell, maybe we should drill in ANWR. We definitely should drill in the Gulf of Mexico before China does. This could be key in energy independence.

indythinker on February 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM

fogw: and as a father of combatant participating in this war, I could never call this battle we are waging a fraud.

The battles — and the sacrifices — are not fraudulent. What is fraudulent is the way our president, probably in partial response to the wishes of his Saudi buddies, has mishandled leadership of the WoT.

It has been common knowledge for years that SA is a major supporter of our enemies, while we continue to treat them as if they’re friends.

I’d like to think McCain would reverse the course charted by the Bushes, father and son. I’m certain the Messiah or Clinton wouldn’t.

MrScribbler on February 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Don’t feel so bad, at one time the US gave 20% of GDP to Islam in tribute. It isn’t that high yet is it?

BL@KBIRD on February 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM

That post 9-11 quote from Coulter suddenly seems oddly current again… I think it went something like this:

Nuke Mecca

Yeah, that’s it. That’s it.

Gartrip on February 15, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Back in my college days, I rented an apartment from a real estate company. The owner, who was upset about gas costs, suggested that we should nuke Saudi Arabia and take over their oil fields. I thought the guy was certifiable, but now I’m not so sure.

As long as we continue to ignore our own resources for oil, and keep giving money to our enemies for their oil, we will be between a rock and a hard place.

Hening on February 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM

MrScribbler on February 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM

President Bush, members of his administration and Republican Party leaders have been calling on the Democrats to allow drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico ad infinitem. This has been an ongoing battle throughout his presidency and in spite of the stranglehold the Middle East countries have on our oil supplies, and consequently our economy, the Democrats will not rise up to the occasion and pass legislation that will open up a motherload of new domestic oil.

And Bush is playing into the hands of the Saudis?

I have trouble making the coorelation since he is the one begging the Democrats to help us end our reliance on Middle East oil, and they fight him at every step because of a polar bear or a grouper.

fogw on February 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM

The Saudis aren’t stupid. If Bandar was charged and tried in absentia in the UK for corruption he would never be able to travel to UK territory again.

The Saudis should remember who protects their trade routes. Because without secure trade routes that desert kingdom would be sandstorm with no end.

gabriel sutherland on February 15, 2008 at 12:25 PM

This has been an ongoing battle throughout his presidency and in spite of the stranglehold the Middle East countries have on our oil supplies, and consequently our economy, the Democrats will not rise up to the occasion and pass legislation that will open up a motherload of new domestic oil.

They’re not budging. President Clinton used executive order powers to siphon off millions of acres of US territory that is rich in resources that could be mined in order to please private families in OTHER COUNTRIES. Thanks for the National Park. Is it Riady National Park? How about ‘corrupt mining family company national park number 1′?

The Democrats are looking out for their donors. That’s what political parties do.

gabriel sutherland on February 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM

“Saudis threaten to unleash jihadists if the UK doesn’t back off a corruption investigation”

That crap should’ve been followed up with:

“UK thraten to unleash S.A.S. if they so much as hear the words ‘Saudi’ or ‘jihadists’, ever again”

While my appreciation for the UK is fast wearing off, thanks to this new PM, I’ll always like the Saudis even less. If Prime Minister Brown rolls over and drops his pants for the Sand People, the UK deservesto take it up the poop chute. There’d be nothing that would make me giggle like finding out a joint NATO SOF strike force (http://www.stormingmedia.us/45/4510/A451054.html) crept into Saudi Arabia under cover of darkness and showed those oil-pumping Tusken Raiders what terror was really all about. That statement was a blatant beg for open warfare, and if they let it slide, it’s going to be yet another milestone in the fall of European civilization to the islamofascists.

Virus-X on February 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM

So why, fogw, has Bush never included SA on the list of nations that enable terrorism? Why is it US policy to support SA?

ANWR is about oil, and Bush is, at heart, an oilman. Moreover, ANWR (even when added to new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, or wherever else) will reduce, not eliminate, our dependence on foreign oil. It is a potential help, not a cure. It is far from being the central point of this issue.

I’d be the last to argue that the Dems haven’t done their share. But the buck, at least when it comes to issues of protecting the nation, stops at Bush’s desk. And, during too much of his presidency, Bush has chosen the desires of others over the needs of Americans.

MrScribbler on February 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM

So why, fogw, has Bush never included SA on the list of nations that enable terrorism? Why is it US policy to support SA?

Because the way Saudi Arabia was created — through the work of former British MI6 agent Jack Philby — was specific enough to make sure Saudi territory included Mecca and Medina to create the “Jihad Option”.

US and UK policy, in regards to Saudi Arabia, is to avoid any and all conflict inside Saudi Arabia.

gabriel sutherland on February 15, 2008 at 12:43 PM

If the Saudis merely agrees to accept the Euro and or the Yuan as payment for oil the entire western economy will crash.

US dollar hegemony (US dollar as the world’s reserve currency) is critical and its the Sauds that keep it in place.

The Sauds have had a, be reasonable, do it my way, attitude, and why not they have immense economic power.

Of course we can always rely our good friend Hugo.

The petrodollar system is no different than the gold standard. Today’s currency is simply underwritten by the one vital source of energy upon which every industrialized society depends—oil. If the dollar is de-linked from oil; it will no longer serve as the de-facto international currency and the US will be forced to reduce its massive trade deficits, rebuild its manufacturing capacity, and become an export nation again. The only alternative is to create a network of client regimes who repress the collective aspirations of their people so they can faithfully follow directives from Washington.

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=35533

Speakup on February 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM

To all those afflicted with BDS and who’s heads are so far up their butts in regards to the treats this country faces, don’t get your code pink panties in a bunch. Just wait with bated breath for another year. The Messiah will be in office, all will be singing kumbaya, hope and change will rule the world! As for me…I’ve decided to go with 7.62!

dmann on February 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM

So why, fogw, has Bush never included SA on the list of nations that enable terrorism? Why is it US policy to support SA?

MrScribbler on February 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Simple question, simple answer.

Until the Dems get on board with drilling for oil domestically, we still need to import oil from the Saudi’s.

Try driving your car on dirt or snapple.

And I fail to see how putting someone’s name on a list is going to change anything. Is that your answer to the problem? Tell little Johnny he’s been a bad boy.

Saudi Prince #1: “Bush has put us on his list.”
Saudi Prince #2: “Are they still buying oil from us?”
Saudi Prince #1: “Oh, Yes.”
Saudi PRince #2: “Raise the price.”

fogw on February 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM

I agree with all the calls for ANWR, offshore drilling, etc.
But shouldn’t we also rethink our driving habits? Is it really necessary to drive our 6000 lb SUV by ourselves to get a cup of coffee from Starbucks? The Prius is considered a “liberal” car, but it fund the jihad far less than a Ford Expedtion.

Golden Boy on February 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Golden Boy on February 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Yep, the good ol’ Prius! Hey why stop there dude, what about recreational vehicles…dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, jet skis, motor boats, snowmobiles, aircraft, the hits keep coming! Why the F do I bother to work?? (oh ya…someone has to pick up the tab for the in state tuition breaks)

dmann on February 15, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Don’t forget:
McCain has promised to forever remove ANWR from the possibility of drilling, much like Clinton did the Escalante coal for the Riadys.

And while he talks about energy independence out of one side of his mouth, his full acceptance of ‘Gorebal Warming’ and planned legislation to further destroy American heavy manufacturing will make it even more impossible to build any new refineries in the US.

So you guys can’t just blame the democrats for this situation. ~ 1/4 of the republicans in the senate and house are just as culpable. So many of you keep telling us holdouts to ‘grow up and support McCain’ when his policies will only make us even more dependent on our enemy’s oil & gas than we are now.

We are screwed no matter who we elect to be President.

LegendHasIt on February 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM

It`s war.

ThePrez on February 15, 2008 at 3:46 PM

“United States citizens who use might consider quitting their illegal social habits, and the U.N. could teach the Afghanistan farmers how to grow other cash crops, for starters.

a capella on February 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM”

Now that’s about the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Yes! Tell the Junkies to stop being junkies, and the problem is solved! Being addicted to herion is a little more than a social habit.

Masscon on February 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM

What would be the costs of nuking Riyadh? The principal oilfields are not that near to it. Hence, the oilfields would survive even if the regime and Aramco did not. Moreover, the Arabian oilfields could be taken over by a consortium of Western countries. These countries would not support the jihadis. Furthermore, the world will get freer access to petroleum. Who would object other than the leftist/environmentalist/islamofascist alliance who oppose everything that even defeatists propose?

chsw

chsw on February 15, 2008 at 5:02 PM

Lord Justice Moses

Heh.

Tzetzes on February 15, 2008 at 5:34 PM

When will we cut these punks loose?

Ten years after the corrupt enviromentalist democraps let us drill in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico.

Zorro on February 15, 2008 at 6:48 PM