Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (25)	11/26/2002 4:31:10 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 15987

>>Someone cue me so I can launch into a tear-jerker of a crying scene<< I'll accompany you on the world's smallest violin.;^)

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (25)	11/26/2002 4:34:49 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

More Saudi belly-aching: >> Editorial: Clear malice 26 November 2002 The allegations surrounding Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, that money given by her for charity ended up possibly being used by terrorists involved in Sept. 11 are shocking — not in themselves but in the way they have been scooped up, twisted, sensationalized and wholly misrepresented by certain American congressmen intent on using them to embarrass the US government and gain glory for themselves and by editors desperate for a story, no matter how untrue. The innuendo that there might have been a money-laundering system is too fantastical, too absurd, to even consider. It is patently illogical for any Saudi official or member of the royal family to support an organization that targets the royal family itself: Al-Qaeda is an enemy to the House of Saud first and foremost, an enemy to the US second. Moreover, it was a punishable crime for Saudis to give donations to Osama Bin Laden and his organization long before Sept. 11. As for allegations in the US media about buying off extremists like him, there is no history and no evidence of Saudis or Saudi Arabia ever doing so. It is ludicrous to suggest that Princess Haifa could be aware of what happened several moves down the line to her donation. People around the world give money to charity, sometimes to find out later that it has ended up in the wrong pockets. That does not make them guilty. The ambassador’s wife had no way of knowing that money she gave in good faith would ever end up linked to terrorists — any more than US officials who gave those same terrorists their visas or the flying school teachers who taught them to fly knew what they were eventually to do. What Americans fail to realize is that for Saudis, as Muslims, charitable giving is a way of life and that for more prominent and wealthy Saudis it is almost expected of them — a Saudi equivalent of noblesse oblige. Americans — perhaps not much given to handing out cash for charity without questions first — may find that difficult to believe; but believe it they should. But this is not just a case of cultural misunderstanding. There is clear malice in the way the story has been built up and presented in certain sections of the US media. They are out to stir things up. Take the Washington Times for example. It refers to reports that Princess Haifa “had sent money indirectly to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers”. The story is slanted, the coverage loaded. The deliberate implication is that the princess knew where the money was going. It is a deliberate slander. The fight against terrorism is not going to be won by malice, hysteria or sensationalism. It needs clear minds, established facts and honest reporting. Innuendo will only poison the atmosphere and weaken resolve. Unfortunately, as was seen in the aftermath of Sept. 11 when one long-dead Saudi was named among the hijackers and others turned out to be alive and well, there are those in the US media and positions of power who would refuse to recognize a fact if it hit them in the face. This sorry episode where conclusions have been jumped at, where “insinuendo” — that repulsive cross between innuendo and insinuation — falls from the lips of politicians who should know better, where irresponsible editors stoop as low as they can to rummage in malevolent and invented fantasy does nothing for US-Saudi relations. It does nothing for American media credibility. It is a shameful, repulsive farce.<< arabnews.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (25)	11/26/2002 4:36:36 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I like this comment on the Saudi Princess flap from freerepublic.com: >>Let's see: we have people who pay Dane-geld to their enemies to buy safety and who give to charities without checking to see where the money is going. Is there such a thing as a Darwin Award for an entire nation?<< freerepublic.com