Two Congressmen claim secret report on 9/11 pins the blame on Saudi Arabia

posted at 8:23 am on December 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

What we know from the New York Post’s report on the claim from Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch and Republican Rep. Walter Jones is that two administrations have kept 28 pages of a 2002 report on the 9/11 so highly classified that they don’t contain redactions — just an ellipsis noting their absence. Lynch and Jones claim that the report from Congress after the attacks that left 3,000 Americans dead contain material that “absolutely shocked” them — and pins the blame on Saudi Arabia for state support of the attack:

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

Three years later, Congress — essentially the same Congress, by the way — produced another report on the 9/11 attacks that didn’t make these accusations, nor the specific allegations mentioned by Paul Sperry in this article. (Be sure to read it all.) Congress would have had the ability to refer to its own materials, one would presume anyway, and clearly the minor changes in the 2002 midterms wouldn’t have wiped out the memories of those who worked on the 2002 report.  That leaves a big question as to whether this intel Sperry cites may have later been discredited, or whether the executive branch interfered with one or both reports.

Why would the Bush administration interfere with the report? Saudi Arabia was a strategic partner for the US in the region, but hardly our only option. If what Lynch and Jones claim is true, the US would have been forced to declare war on Saudi Arabia, which would have touched off a much wider war, especially if we had gone after the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, as was being suggested anyway at the time by some public figures as retaliation for the terrorist attack. Covering up their involvement would still leave the US covering up an act of war out of what can only be charitably called an overabundance of caution.  If the Saudis declared war on us, then we should have responded in kind or forced a very public surrender on our terms.

That still doesn’t explain why the successor Obama administration would have kept this locked away if the data was accurate and conclusions correct, assuming that’s what the report says.  Democrats spent years floating conspiracy theories about the Bushes and the Saudis — and this would have been the smokiest smoking gun of all. It would have helped Obama explain and draw support for his decision to warm up to Iran and snub Saudis over the last few months, if not the last few years.

If I had to guess, I’d say the reason it remains classified is that the data may not be as solid as it appears, but we’re not going to know that until it’s actually declassified. More than 12 years after the attack, it’s time to see that initial review of the intelligence and let the American people make up their own minds about it.


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Only if you believe that a quarter acre is a lot of real estate.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM

A quarter acre is a lot, just not a large lot of real estate.

Rio Linda Refugee on December 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM

There is a stronger than ever suspicion that Cuba and perhaps the Soviet Union had a hand in the JFK assassination. That has never been fully explored in public, either. State terrorism takes many forms.

jclittlep on December 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Only if you believe that a quarter acre is a lot of real estate.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Have ya seen the prices of Marin County real estate…?

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I am not going to blame anyone who was unclear about my intent.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

And, just imagine how many there could be of those. To infinity, since you raised the issue of counting the uncountable: “anyone who was unclear about…intent.”

I’m sure millions are scratching their heads at this very moment about all that they may be unclear about, or unclear about, or know or not know they don’t.

Lourdes on December 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

No, you come on.

If someone wants to argue about the facts of that case here, they can do it without my participation…I’m content with them telling me I’m wrong, and they should be just as content with me saying the same back to them.

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

You hijack a thread and then whine when called on it. Got it.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 16, 2013 at 11:01 AM

That still doesn’t explain why the successor Obama administration would have kept this locked away if the data was accurate and conclusions correct, assuming that’s what the report says.

What is Obama going to do? Disrupt Saudi oil production and throw the country’s economy into even greater problems? There might have been a national will for that just after 9/11 but not now. I’ll bet your wondering why nothing happened to NK when they sunk a SK naval vessel. Sometimes it’s like the place is the onion.

DFCtomm on December 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM

You hijack a thread and then whine when called on it. Got it.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 16, 2013 at 11:01 AM

How does a person hijack a thread when he refuses to be led into a tangential argument about his opinion by argumentative people? ROFL!

You ignore the difference between “points of discussion” and “points of reference,” and unethically don’t care that you don’t care about the difference. Got it! :)

Anti-Control on December 16, 2013 at 11:07 AM

I suspect the reason it remains restricted is because it would undermine the anti-Bush ‘warmonger, bad intel, lied about WMDs’ meme. And both administrations would’ve kept it under wraps:

– Bush, because he’s not a self-aggrandizing idiot that values personal prestige over national security, so he’d have opted to leave it classified;
– Obama, because the last thing he’d ever want to do would be something that undermined a meme that is very useful still in whipping up his idiot worshipers.

Midas on December 16, 2013 at 11:09 AM

What is Obama going to do? Disrupt Saudi oil production and throw the country’s economy into even greater problems?

DFCtomm on December 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Shh, don’t give him any ideas.

Midas on December 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM

So W is a bigger traitor than Arnold. But to save the costs of reprinting all those history books, it’s best to let it slide right? Why should the economy suffer?

You should all focus on winning the hearts and minds of the Saudis again.

“Who wants my chocolate Saudi balls?
…….put em in your mouth and suck em!”

BL@KBIRD on December 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM

First, I’d like to read it before denouncing anyone. Third hand reports like this are normally nonsense.

Second, it’s obvious why Obama hasn’t done anything: He hasn’t bothered to read the report. Knowing about this could not possibly advance the Left’s agenda, so why bother. Plus he’s probably not mentioned anywhere in it.

Hucklebuck on December 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Although highly placed Saudi officials might have directly or indirectly had knowledge of or even complicity in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, I find it hard to believe the government of Saudi Arabia would mastermind or sponsor these attacks in any official capacity, no matter how covert. It makes no sense. The risk would be enormous, especially if official Saudi involvement became known soon after the attacks. Their country–and possibly their civilization, such as it is–would cease to exist, oil or no oil. The House of Saud is a lot of things but I don’t think mind-bogglingly stupid is one of them.

troyriser_gopftw on December 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM

I don’t think Barack would have bowed to the Saudi King if any of this were the case.

John the Libertarian on December 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM

The immediate INTEL gathered from the Balkans captured from al Qaeda during a raid indicate that one of the Saudi oil families was involved in funding AQ, and we aren’t talking a few dimes, either.

The KSA bank was rife with holes for AQ to fly through prior to 9/11, and KSA did nothing about the AQ recruiters in country until 9/11, even after they had been victimized by AQ terror attacks in the ’90s.

At the time of the attack all of the AQ leadership had matriculated through the Saudi-funded Muslim Brotherhood, and had created a leadership system based on MB recruits. Yes you got an Egyptian #2 man, but he was OK’d by Binny who was still on passable terms with his family and he had become a ‘hero’ during the Afghan/Soviet conflict by being the go-to man for Saudi funding.

The number of indirect links of oil families, banking establishments, and allowance for recruiting in KSA all point to a tacit understanding between the Saudis and AQ. Try to imagine AQ without any active Saudi funding and having their members stoned to death in public wherever they are found in KSA… there would be no AQ. The Saudis created the system for establishing terror groups through the MB, they allowed MB recruiters for terror groups to get Saudis to join, bankers actively washed petrodollars for influential families to AQ, and the religious part of the regime backs ALL OF THIS.

Saudis to blame for 9/11?

NSS!

That is what they built that system for: attacking all parts of the world that do not agree with them, Islamic or non-Islammic.

ajacksonian on December 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM

If I had to guess, I’d say the reason it remains classified is that the data may not be as solid as it appears, but we’re not going to know that until it’s actually declassified. More than 12 years after the attack, it’s time to see that initial review of the intelligence and let the American people make up their own minds about it.

I’m in agreement with Ed here.

As I speculate about this, I see this less of a real smoking gun towards a nation-state. The Royal Family in SA is quite large…and what I see is more of a connection between the Salafists / Wahibbists and other fundamentalist radical Islamists within AQ working together on a massive strike against the secular West as part of the war fundamentalist radical Islam is waging against anyone who isn’t a true believer.

Admitting those details would clearly demonstrate that this is less of a traditional war between nation-states, or a nation-state sponsoring what was believed to be a non-state entity to carry out an act of war, and more of what we’re told that this isn’t – a religious war being waged against non-believers.

Athos on December 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Of course some top Saudis were involved.

But the Saudi government as a whole?

Unlikely.

The “country” is split with warring factions.

The Al Qaeda leaning gang in the land helped the 15 Saudis to try to humble the Great Satan.

We should have targeted those guilty Saudis for a CIA camel hoofkick in the head at some lonely oasis.

Dead terror-supporters send a solid message.

Why Bush failed at this… and Obama… is the question.

Who owns who?

profitsbeard on December 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM

“That still doesn’t explain why the successor Obama administration would have kept this locked away…”

That would have required a decision. A decision requires thinking. Thinking requires knowledge. Knowledge requires experience.

That’s why.

Tsar of Earth on December 16, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Have ya seen the prices of Marin County real estate…?

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM

It’s not the price, but the fact that someone with a decent arm can throw a ball completely over a square quarter-acre.

Steve Eggleston on December 16, 2013 at 1:08 PM

JohnGalt23 on December 16, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Sorry I mis-spoke. I have read that the Taliban are a proxy for Pakistan’s ISI. (Not the KSA) The ISI was protecting and hiding Bin Laden.

The Saudis and the Pakistanis have been talking about various deals between the countries including nukes.

AQ and the Taliban were working in concert. When these people are not working in concert they murder each other.

dogsoldier on December 16, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Explain this again, I just got back from my “Two Minutes Hate”

J_Crater on December 16, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Third hand reports like this are normally nonsense.

Hucklebuck on December 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Very, very true. But a good conspiracy theory forces you to prove a negative. So, oodles of fun.

(I won’t say the Saudis couldn’t do this or didn’t. But I need a bit more than these guys’ say-so.)

GWB on December 16, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I’ve been a defender of George Bush against all the scurrilous slurs and lies told about him since he was elected, but if this is true, my ongoing support for him will evaporate in about two seconds.

factsonlypls on December 16, 2013 at 1:42 PM

It’s secret, and they spilt the beans.

If they get prosecuted, I’ll believe it.

Akzed on December 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Saudi Arabia has an identity crisis. There are so many different factions within the royal family and government that it is impossible to know what is “official policy” vs. a “rouge operation”. Some of these factions are composed of ultra-fundamentalists who are itching for jihad.

The highest members of the royal family have to balance on a knife’s blade to keep the factions under control so the royal family does not end up as ex-royals. This means that the royal family has to at least pay lip service to the radicals’ dream of pure Islam taking over the world.

I have no problem with the idea that someone in the royal family or a high government official had been giving aid and comfort to the 9/11 plotters and may even have known about the plot. But that does not mean that it would be wise to officially put the Saudi government’s feet to the fire over it. The Saudi government has no control over the radicals and the US should not endanger its relationship with a public outcry.

But I would hope that there were sane people in both governments who are trying to deal with this through back channels.

bartbeast on December 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM

We should let Iran get the bomb to punish the Saudis. /

oldroy on December 16, 2013 at 1:56 PM

But I would hope that there were sane people in both governments who are trying to deal with this through back channels.

bartbeast on December 16, 2013 at 1:53 PM

John Kerry will smooth this over with one call from his Mekong pleasure cruise. You’d think the Lioness of Tuzla would have fixed it years ago.

oldroy on December 16, 2013 at 1:59 PM

That still doesn’t explain why the successor Obama administration would have kept this locked away if the data was accurate and conclusions correct, assuming that’s what the report says. Democrats spent years floating conspiracy theories about the Bushes and the Saudis — and this would have been the smokiest smoking gun of all. It would have helped Obama explain and draw support for his decision to warm up to Iran and snub Saudis over the last few months, if not the last few years.

Did you not see Obama take a deep bow with the Saudi King? He supports them just as much as Bush did..also 15 of the 19 attackers were from Saudi Arabia.,.this is no coincidence…I have no doubt that people way up the food chain helped finance this attack

sadsushi on December 16, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Lynch and Jones claim that the report from Congress after the attacks that left 3,000 Americans dead contain material that “absolutely shocked” them — and pins the blame on Saudi Arabia for state support of the attack:

They do? Where do Jones and Lynch claim this? They don’t. In fact, here’s what the piece says:

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law.

So, they in fact did NOT say the country was Saudi Arabia, did they? That’s what other folks referenced in the article claim. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Saudi Arabia, my problem is with the inaccuracy of this article. Hopefully it’s just lazy reporting.

xblade on December 16, 2013 at 2:22 PM

But the Dems were just making politics out of their conspiracy theories. They didn’t want to really face the music! The Kingdom has been very, very generous to dems too.

Meanwhile, an “honor killer” is about to get his just due. And he’s ticked off about it. Heh.

PattyJ on December 16, 2013 at 2:35 PM

If Saudi Arabia had declared war on us. Saudi Arabia would have declared war on us.

Shuffling away 20 some odd pages can’t cover that up.

My bet is that it’s ambiguous reference to a piece of something that if dug into might show something wider. The CONNECTIONS of those named in the section are most likely the more dangerous door to open through release.

But of course, I’m SPECULATING. We all are.

Genuine on December 16, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Facts:

(1) Most of hijackers were from Saudi Arabia

(2) The Saudi Arabian government are major source of funding for Jihadist groups.

(3) Bush family and Bush government officials (Colin Powell) are very close the Saudi Royal family

Look I am getting sick and tired of the defense of Bush when it comes to the Arabians. I am conservative and a hawk, but I am not an idiot. Bush gave Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan a pass for 9-11. That is a reality. Those three have sponsored Jihadist groups that have many more Americans than all the rest of the Islamic world combined, including Iran and Saddam’s Iraq.

I will never understand the idea that Saudi Arabia is an ally. They are not, and they never were. They were an acquaintance that had a lot of oil that we one time needed and that was it. Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, while Bush was praising them as a ally against “Terrorism”.

Even the whole concept of a war against terrorism was stupid. It should have been called a war against Jihad, but Bush did not want to do that for it would offend those hard to find moderate Muslims.

SO even if this report is NOT true, it still would not change my opinion of the Bush administration. Bush, due to ineptitude, let the real countries responsible for 9-11 off, wasted our time in Iraq, and finished it off giving Russia and China strategic breathing room. That is on top of all his domestic failings, Medicare drug expansion, one bad supreme court choice and nearly another, blew up the national debt, gave us TARP and other crony capitalistic programs, etc.

Until Republicans admit what a failure his administration was this party will continue to make the same mistakes.

William Eaton on December 16, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Also, anyone seeking to learn more about the US/Saudi Arabia ties and historical significance should read a book called Sleeping with the Devil by Robert Baer.

He’s a former CIA officer and great number of things in the book itself are redacted. I read it years ago but it was one of the best reads I’ve ever had. Afterward you can begin to have a better understanding of the world behind the curtain of our Presidents bowing and holding hands like girlfriends with the Saudi Royal Family.

It’s deep. And a difficult situation to be right about without a good understanding of the reality and history.

Genuine on December 16, 2013 at 2:44 PM

John Kerry will smooth this over with one call from his Mekong pleasure cruise.
oldroy on December 16, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Ahhh, yes – the usual yearly Cambodian Christmas vacation.

whatcat on December 16, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Two Congressmen claim secret report on 9/11 pins the blame on Saudi Arabia

Their claim that they cannot tell the world without facing prosecution is BS. They are protected by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

Say the truth and it will set us free. Nuke Riyadh!!!!

patch on December 16, 2013 at 3:12 PM

William Eaton on December 16, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11/01. President Bush declared terrorists would not be permitted to havw any safe haven anywhere in the world. It was President Barack Obama who violated the War Powers Act by extending the war against Libya to help AL QAEDA take over Libya. not only did Obama give them ‘safe haven’ in Libay, he GAVE THEM LIBYA’. He also sacrificed a US Ambassador & 3 other Americans to them – Al Qaeda, betraying and abandoning them.

Obama / the CIA ran guns to Jihadists in Syria out of Benghazi. he aided the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt, and on the anniversary of 9/11 allowed nearly 20 US Embassies abroad be attacked & overrun throughout the Middle east. Despite all the evidence he labeled the Fort Hood TERRORIST attack a case of ‘workplace violence’ … in order NOT to offend the terrorists / Islamic extremists. He has let members of the Muslim Brotherhood on the ‘No Fly List’ attend cabinet Member beetings.

Say what you will about Bush ‘failing to make Saudis pay’ for 9/11/01, Bush is NOT a terrorist / terrorist supporter / Islamic Extremist Sympathizer as is Obama!

easyt65 on December 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Have you ever served in the Navy? The facts and eyewitness statements simply don’t support the idea that the Liberty attack was a horrible accident.

Happy Nomad on December 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

There’s no facet of US military training that allows servicemen to discern the intent of a pilot based on the trajectory of rockets and cannon shells he’s firing at you.

The fact the Israeli planes were using weapons that are ineffective against ships is consistent with Israeli pilots shooting at what they thought was a target of opportunity rather than a planned premeditated attempt to sink any ship, let alone one they knew was American.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Ahhh, yes – the usual yearly Cambodian Christmas vacation.

whatcat on December 16, 2013 at 2:49 PM

All expenses paid trip down memory lane. Hope he doesn’t get a scratch or a hangnail.

oldroy on December 16, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Didn’t Barack bow to the Saudi king, more than once?

bigred on December 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Mecca is a latrine.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Obama bowed to hide his Boner.

SparkPlug on December 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM

There are things from WWI that are still classified.

Stuff is NOT declassified just because inquiring minds want to know.

Adjoran on December 16, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Why not ask Snowden if he’s got a copy?

PersonFromPorlock on December 16, 2013 at 6:33 PM

‘Explain this again, I just got back from my “Two Minutes Hate”’

Thread winner.

Hucklebuck on December 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM

What we know from the New York Post’s report on the claim from Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch and Republican Rep. Walter Jones is that two administrations have kept 28 pages of a 2002 report on the 9/11 so highly classified that they don’t contain redactions — just an ellipsis noting their absence.

“National security”.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 16, 2013 at 10:46 PM

William Eaton on December 16, 2013 at 2:39 PM

+1

David Blue on December 16, 2013 at 11:43 PM

why do I get the sense that we are careening towards a war? Pick one… China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria….who’d I miss?

ted c on December 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Texas? Arizona?

rhombus on December 17, 2013 at 7:06 AM

Didn’t bother to read all the comments so I apologize if I echo what someone else has already said, but I find it extremely curious that this report’s findings are coming to light at this point in time after 12 years or so of silence.

Hmmmm, what else is going on over in the middle east these days?

Oh, that’s right- the moron administration is trying to get their agreement of stupid with Iran through the legislative branch. The agreement so bad it has Saudi Arabia uniting with Israel in denouncing it.

Curious coincidence- not unlike when the idiots in the white house (president jarrett and so forth) decided to leak that the US was behind stuxnet in order to burnish the foreign policy creds of princess backnine during the last election season.

What a bunch of unflushed turds we have floating in the White House.

GrassMudHorsey on December 17, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Democrats spent years floating conspiracy theories about the Bushes and the Saudis — and this would have been the smokiest smoking gun of all. It would have helped Obama explain and draw support for his decision to warm up to Iran and snub Saudis over the last few months, if not the last few years.

Simple. Despite how damaging this would have been for Republicans, Obama could not release it. He came to office with the economy in the tank. To then smear Saudi Arabia to the point of labeling them an enemy would have wrecked oil markets. Such damage would have far outweighed the gains of attacking an out of office President. Even Obama was not that stupid.

Plus, Obama wanted to look like a hawk. He can do that with his drone strikes and such. If he outed the Saudis and then proceeded to do nothing about them, though, he would have looked weak.

eski502 on December 17, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Although highly placed Saudi officials might have directly or indirectly had knowledge of or even complicity in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, I find it hard to believe the government of Saudi Arabia would mastermind or sponsor these attacks in any official capacity, no matter how covert. It makes no sense. The risk would be enormous, especially if official Saudi involvement became known soon after the attacks. Their country–and possibly their civilization, such as it is–would cease to exist, oil or no oil. The House of Saud is a lot of things but I don’t think mind-bogglingly stupid is one of them.

troyriser_gopftw on December 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM

I agree as to it not being likely “the government of Saudi Arabia would mastermind…” etc.

I DO think it’s very, very likely that Muslims within the Saudi govt. (as elsewhere) were involved, responsible for 9/11 — and that’s already been established from what it looks like per this and other reports about those responsible (at least, so far uncovered/identified).

We here in the US have to do this consideration-dance of not blaming any one religion for this, that, but there IS an ongoing problem for our general welfare as a country and civilization caused by, being caused by, Islam. It’s the culprit behind 9/11, regardless of how loudly Muslims and Liberals cry that we can’t blame them for, whatever: it was Islam that caused it, planned it, brought it about, practitioners in that who were involved if not are still.

Lourdes on December 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Obama wanted to look like a hawk. He can do that with his drone strikes and such. If he outed the Saudis and then proceeded to do nothing about them, though, he would have looked weak.

eski502 on December 17, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Muslims. Islam. Practitioners of Islam. In Saudi and elsewhere.

So of course Obama wouldn’t “identify” them…

Lourdes on December 17, 2013 at 10:34 AM

U.S. Mosques

Mosques in the U.S. are gaining popularity. Of the 1,200 mosques currently operating in the U.S., nearly 80 percent have been built in the past 12 years.

A large majority of mosques in the United States are led by Wahhabi clerics. Wahhabism is an extreme brand of Islam practiced dominantly in Saudi Arabia. According to Muslim estimates, up to 80 percent of mosques in the U.S. are owned, operated and led by Wahhabis.

These radical mosques often promote the installation of Sharia law, an extreme ideology that considers ‘non-believers’ to be infidels. According to Wahhabis, Jihad or support of Jihad is a Muslim duty. They believe that suicide bombers and martyrs are worthy of the highest praise and reward. And radicals are anticipating the day when an Islamic state will one day span the U.S….

(– Continued)

and

Saudi Arabia’s Funding of American Mosques

The Left is working feverishly to denounce these issues, particularly that SA is major funding source of mosques-in-US.

Lourdes on December 17, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Islam is the problem.

Mason on December 17, 2013 at 12:18 PM

There’s no facet of US military training that allows servicemen to discern the intent of a pilot based on the trajectory of rockets and cannon shells he’s firing at you.

The fact the Israeli planes were using weapons that are ineffective against ships is consistent with Israeli pilots shooting at what they thought was a target of opportunity rather than a planned premeditated attempt to sink any ship, let alone one they knew was American.

Alberta_Patriot on December 16, 2013 at 4:46 PM

I wanted to wait to respond to this until the thread was dying.

Here is a good link that explains what happened: http://www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.htm

The eyewitness testimony of the Liberty’s crew (as well as physical evidence) completely contradicts the “official” story of the attack being an “accident” – to deny this makes the crew out to be a bunch of idiots who didn’t know what they experienced. Trying to pin this on “anti-Semitism” is as stupid as saying that Israeli government officials have never lied in public…

Anti-Control on December 17, 2013 at 7:40 PM

More than 12 years after the attack, it’s time to see that initial review of the intelligence and let the American people make up their own minds about it.

The American people had almost four years of Obama’s first term and still chose to put him back in office.

Frankly, I have very little faith in our ability as a nation to some to rational conclusions and make intelligent decisions.

arik1969 on December 17, 2013 at 8:04 PM

I wanted to wait to respond to this until the thread was dying.

Anti-Control on December 17, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Your case is so fragile that you need to limit the number of people who see it?

I read your link. It’s no wonder you don’t want too many people looking at it. It’s absolutely hysterical.

I never knew before that jew pilots were so skilled that they could target individual communications antennas and single M2 .50 cal mounts with unguided rockets from a plane screaming along the deck at 300 knots.

If you actually believe this crap, then it’s no wonder you fear and hate them so much.

Alberta_Patriot on December 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM

If you actually believe this crap, then it’s no wonder you fear and hate them so much.

Alberta_Patriot on December 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Did you know that every eyewitness on the Liberty was an anti-Semite, just as all of the other overwhelming evidence that the Israeli’s knew which ship they were attacking was/is? Do you also know that no Israeli government official has ever lied?

ROFL

Anti-Control on December 19, 2013 at 8:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2