U.S. Freezes Assets Of Persons Opposed To Yemen'S Transition

[News_Editor]

U.S. freezes assets of persons opposed to Yemen's transition < br /> 2012-05-17 10:55:37 GMT+7 (ICT) WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed an executive order to freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone who directly or indirectly obstructs the implementation of the Washington-backed political transition in Yemen, the White House said.Obama, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, declared a national emergency on Wednesday in order to give the U.S. Treasury Department the authority to target individuals and entities which it deems to pose a threat to Yemen's peace, security, or stability."The order does not target the entire country of Yemen or its government, but rather targets those who threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen, including by obstructing the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change, or by obstructing the political process in Yemen," Obama said in a message to Congress.After signing a political agreement brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) last year, embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh handed over presidential powers to his deputy in November 2011. A national unity government, led by Abd Rabbuh Mansur Al-Hadi, was sworn in a month later in an effort to restore peace and democracy in Yemen. The ruling party and opposition parties evenly divided the 34 ministries.Under the new powers, the U.S. Treasury Department is allowed to freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone it believes is acting "directly or indirectly" against the political transition. It also allows sanctions against political and military leaders of an entity which has engaged in acts that threatens Yemen's stability or the political transition.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-05-17

[koheesti]

Under the new powers, the U.S. Treasury Department is allowed to freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone it believes is acting "directly or indirectly" against the political transition.

That seems pretty broad. Where's the outrage? If Pres Bush had done this there would be mass protests in the streets.

[Colin Yai]

Under the new powers, the U.S. Treasury Department is allowed to freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone it believes is acting "directly or indirectly" against the political transition.

That seems pretty broad. Where's the outrage? If Pres Bush had done this there would be mass protests in the streets.

Two reasons , Bush was not Black and neither was he a Socialist

[flying]

Under the new powers, the U.S. Treasury Department is allowed to freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone it believes is acting "directly or indirectly" against the political transition.

That seems pretty broad. Where's the outrage? If Pres Bush had done this there would be mass protests in the streets.

Tis true but none should be surprised.

The patriot act as well as the national state of emergency have been used as tools to side step the Constitution & gain *special* powers

Obama. extended George Bush's Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009,on September 10, 2010,and on September 9, 2011

Two wings same bird

[Steely Dan]

Well you wouldn't want anyone interfering whilst a bronze age theocracy democracy is set up for the grateful citizens of Yemen.

[mogoso]

Just the Obama trying to insure the Muslim Brotherhood gets in power as soon as possible.

[Colin Yai]

Just the Obama trying to insure the Muslim Brotherhood gets in power as soon as possible.

Nice one!

[geriatrickid]

LOL, you guys take the cake.

The USA is following along with agreed upon international sanctions and is not alone in this.

And therein lies the difference now. The USA at least makes an attempt to respect international law, whereas Mr. Bush's regime did not.

The US embrace of unilateral action was pronounced under Bush. Ronald Reagan understood the need to work in conjunction with his allies. Bush the elder knew that too. Bush the younger relied on dangerous Cheney and his gang.

[koheesti]

LOL, you guys take the cake.

The USA is following along with agreed upon international sanctions and is not alone in this.

And therein lies the difference now. The USA at least makes an attempt to respect international law, whereas Mr. Bush's regime did not.

The US embrace of unilateral action was pronounced under Bush. Ronald Reagan understood the need to work in conjunction with his allies. Bush the elder knew that too. Bush the younger relied on dangerous Cheney and his gang.

...and the majority of NATO countries, for about 30+ allies in total. Just because France and Germany - who wouldn't have contributed money or troops anyway - did join doesn't mean allies weren't worked with.

As for this thread topic, what raises my eyebrow isn't freezing assets, it's the extremely low bar that is set of if they simply believe someone is indirectly acting against the political transition.

It would seem that as someone who thinks Cheney was "dangerous", you might think this sounds a lot like taking action just for believing someone has WMDs. At least Bush & Cheney, via Powell, presented their "evidence" to the UN first (evidence which, BTW, all intelligence agencies around the world agreed with). Is Obama going to present any of his own "evidence" before freezing assets?

[Steely Dan]

LOL, you guys take the cake.

The USA is following along with agreed upon international sanctions and is not alone in this.

And therein lies the difference now. The USA at least makes an attempt to respect international law, whereas Mr. Bush's regime did not.

The US embrace of unilateral action was pronounced under Bush. Ronald Reagan understood the need to work in conjunction with his allies. Bush the elder knew that too. Bush the younger relied on dangerous Cheney and his gang.

I'm more concerned with the glove puppetry than I am the legal niceties, and more to the point whose hand is at work behind the scenes.

[flying]

As for this thread topic, what raises my eyebrow isn't freezing assets, it's the extremely low bar that is set of if they simply believe someone is indirectly acting against the political transition.

+1 & the way things have been going for some time now I would be surprised if folks of substance had not already started moving/selling US based assets.

Most probably did not come by wealth via stupidity. At some point things like this just start to smell like witch hunts. Those with wealth in the US & ties to which ever side in Yemen they feel is right may choose to exit any chance of being found guilty in a kangaroo court.

Edited May 18, 2012 by flying

[koheesti]

I think some very wealthy Gulf Arab sheikhs should be concerned about their assets in the USA because many in the USA believe that some of them at least indirectly support groups that oppose political reform in Yemen.

[Steely Dan]

I think some very wealthy Gulf Arab sheikhs should be concerned about their assets in the USA because many in the USA believe that some of them at least indirectly support groups that oppose political reform in Yemen.

The key is the phrase 'Political reform', does that mean political reform as in Egypt with the Muslim brotherhood propped up by the salafists taking control? The phrase really means doing the bidding of the Wahhabi oil cartel and making sure both shiite influence and Al-Qaeda are kept in check or the chaos in Yemen may be repeated elsewhere in the region.

[Colin Yai]

I think some very wealthy Gulf Arab sheikhs should be concerned about their assets in the USA because many in the USA believe that some of them at least indirectly support groups that oppose political reform in Yemen.

The key is the phrase 'Political reform', does that mean political reform as in Egypt with the Muslim brotherhood propped up by the salafists taking control? The phrase really means doing the bidding of the Wahhabi oil cartel and making sure both shiite influence and Al-Qaeda are kept in check or the chaos in Yemen may be repeated elsewhere in the region.

I think some very wealthy Gulf Arab sheikhs should be concerned about their assets in the USA because many in the USA believe that some of them at least indirectly support groups that oppose political reform in Yemen.

The key is the phrase 'Political reform', does that mean political reform as in Egypt with the Muslim brotherhood propped up by the salafists taking control? The phrase really means doing the bidding of the Wahhabi oil cartel and making sure both shiite influence and Al-Qaeda are kept in check or the chaos in Yemen may be repeated elsewhere in the region.

The plot thickens!!

[GentlemanJim]

I can't understand why any non US born person would want to reside there, have business there or keep money and assets there. I was told that millions of dollars of business was withdrawn from the US after the guys in NZ were extradited there for running a P2P/bit torrent site as 'some' of the internet traffic was routed through a server in the US. Many businesses simply moved all their storage elsewhere. Why would anyone keep money there is just beyond me.

[Steely Dan]

Ok, fighting Al-Qaeda and stopping Iran destabilizing Yemen are no doubt desirable, most of all to the house of Saud. I would have no trouble whatsoever with western involvement in Yemen, except we are being played by Saudi Arabia and the GCC who desire the status quo in Yemen and would like to keep their own populations from shiite uprisings, the Muslim brotherhood or indeed western style democracy by a mixture of throwing money at their masses and deflecting anger externally by fostering hatred towards their supposed allies in the west.

http://frontpagemag....udi-superstate/

Edited May 19, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Colin Yai]

Thanks Dan, an excellent and certainly a thought provoking link!

[Steely Dan]

I've heard it said that a democracy is only as good as the values and beliefs of the population allow it to be. In that case I would recommend nuking the entire place as these are the values and beliefs we are looking at.

http://www.emirates247.com/crime/region/donkey-rape-sparks-tribal-massacre-in-yemen-2012-05-21-1.459649

Fifteen people were killed or injured in tribal fighting in Yemen after a male donkey chased an ass and raped it just near the house of its owner.

Newspapers in Yemen said the owner of the ass got mad after he saw the donkey attacking his animal, prompting him to chase the donkey and hit it. The attack infuriated the donkey owner, who called his armed tribe men and asked them to take revenge.

For those who think I'm selectively making (ahem) certain groups look bad all I could ask is how could I possibly paint a picture worse than the reality?

[Exsexyman]

I've heard it said that a democracy is only as good as the values and beliefs of the population allow it to be. In that case I would recommend nuking the entire place as these are the values and beliefs we are looking at.

http://www.emirates2...-05-21-1.459649

Fifteen people were killed or injured in tribal fighting in Yemen after a male donkey chased an ass and raped it just near the house of its owner.

Newspapers in Yemen said the owner of the ass got mad after he saw the donkey attacking his animal, prompting him to chase the donkey and hit it. The attack infuriated the donkey owner, who called his armed tribe men and asked them to take revenge.

For those who think I'm selectively making (ahem) certain groups look bad all I could ask is how could I possibly paint a picture worse than the reality?

Yes, selectivity is a strange beast to be sure. Yesterday more than 90 young men were killed in Yemen by an Al Qaida terrorist bomb, with the predictable howls of condemnation from the confused usual suspects, Obama, Clinton, Hague etc. Al Qaida terrorists in Yemen = bad, Al Qaida terrorists in Libya and Syria = good.

[folium]

Yes, selectivity is a strange beast to be sure. Yesterday more than 90 young men were killed in Yemen by an Al Qaida terrorist bomb, with the predictable howls of condemnation from the confused usual suspects, Obama, Clinton, Hague etc. Al Qaida terrorists in Yemen = bad, Al Qaida terrorists in Libya and Syria = good.

Not sure if any of the people you mention see AQ as "good" wherever they may be operating.

[Steely Dan]

Yes, selectivity is a strange beast to be sure. Yesterday more than 90 young men were killed in Yemen by an Al Qaida terrorist bomb, with the predictable howls of condemnation from the confused usual suspects, Obama, Clinton, Hague etc. Al Qaida terrorists in Yemen = bad, Al Qaida terrorists in Libya and Syria = good.

AQ certainly seem to be the common denominator. I guess it depends on whether it is desired to remove the regime in question or prop it up, and more to the point who desires this. Hint, I'm not necessarily thinking of the U.S. either, they are a proxy whether they know it or not imho.

[folium]

Yes, selectivity is a strange beast to be sure. Yesterday more than 90 young men were killed in Yemen by an Al Qaida terrorist bomb, with the predictable howls of condemnation from the confused usual suspects, Obama, Clinton, Hague etc. Al Qaida terrorists in Yemen = bad, Al Qaida terrorists in Libya and Syria = good.

AQ certainly seem to be the common denominator. I guess it depends on whether it is desired to remove the regime in question or prop it up, and more to the point who desires this. Hint, I'm not necessarily thinking of the U.S. either, they are a proxy whether they know it or not imho.

Too much subtlety. Are you saying that the Saudis/GCC are using AQ?

[Steely Dan]

Yes, selectivity is a strange beast to be sure. Yesterday more than 90 young men were killed in Yemen by an Al Qaida terrorist bomb, with the predictable howls of condemnation from the confused usual suspects, Obama, Clinton, Hague etc. Al Qaida terrorists in Yemen = bad, Al Qaida terrorists in Libya and Syria = good.

AQ certainly seem to be the common denominator. I guess it depends on whether it is desired to remove the regime in question or prop it up, and more to the point who desires this. Hint, I'm not necessarily thinking of the U.S. either, they are a proxy whether they know it or not imho.

Too much subtlety. Are you saying that the Saudis/GCC are using AQ?

Yes, exactly. The U.S. are useful in removing secular despots or neutralizing Shiite regimes, but are equally useful in deflecting anger from their own populations who are steered towards supporting AQ. The Pakistani regime plays both sides in the same way.

http://www.sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/05/america-rogue-nation.html

Edited May 22, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

Yes, selectivity is a strange beast to be sure. Yesterday more than 90 young men were killed in Yemen by an Al Qaida terrorist bomb, with the predictable howls of condemnation from the confused usual suspects, Obama, Clinton, Hague etc. Al Qaida terrorists in Yemen = bad, Al Qaida terrorists in Libya and Syria = good.

AQ certainly seem to be the common denominator. I guess it depends on whether it is desired to remove the regime in question or prop it up, and more to the point who desires this. Hint, I'm not necessarily thinking of the U.S. either, they are a proxy whether they know it or not imho.

Too much subtlety. Are you saying that the Saudis/GCC are using AQ?

Yes, exactly. The U.S. are useful in removing secular despots or neutralizing Shiite regimes, but are equally useful in deflecting anger from their own populations who are steered towards supporting AQ. The Pakistani regime plays both sides in the same way.

http://www.sultankni...gue-nation.html

Bit of a stretch?

Many ignorant cops and firefighters (amongst others) in Boston, NYC and San Francisco were only to happy to chuck money into the hat for Noraid (which bought weaponry for the Provisional IRA in N. Ireland) up until Sept 2011 which provoked a fundamental reset of attitudes. While there were also some US politicians who were supporters of the IRA (may they hang their heads in shame), it did not mean that the US government was funding and supporting a terrorist agent.

Similarly while some similarly ignorant Saudi citizens do apparently contribute to front organizations that fund terrorism, there is no evidence of such support being government policy.

Furthermore the Saudis appear to be working closely with the US to frustrate AQ in Yemen and appear to have assisted in the disruption of the latest superpants bomb plot. AQ's attacks on Saudi soil in 2003 reset the situation and refocused Saudi attention on AQ's primary aim of the destruction of the Saudi regime. Similarly the recent turmoil throughout the Arab world has caused the Saudi government to ensure their own safety and AQ represents a direct threat.

[Steely Dan]

Bit of a stretch?

Many ignorant cops and firefighters (amongst others) in Boston, NYC and San Francisco were only to happy to chuck money into the hat for Noraid (which bought weaponry for the Provisional IRA in N. Ireland) up until Sept 2011 which provoked a fundamental reset of attitudes. While there were also some US politicians who were supporters of the IRA (may they hang their heads in shame), it did not mean that the US government was funding and supporting a terrorist agent.

Similarly while some similarly ignorant Saudi citizens do apparently contribute to front organizations that fund terrorism, there is no evidence of such support being government policy.

Furthermore the Saudis appear to be working closely with the US to frustrate AQ in Yemen and appear to have assisted in the disruption of the latest superpants bomb plot. AQ's attacks on Saudi soil in 2003 reset the situation and refocused Saudi attention on AQ's primary aim of the destruction of the Saudi regime. Similarly the recent turmoil throughout the Arab world has caused the Saudi government to ensure their own safety and AQ represents a direct threat.

Saudi Arabia is probably an immensely difficult place for outsiders to know what is going on for certain, but lets just observe that in 2002 they promised to set up a commission to investigate how their Islamic charities were funneling money to fund terrorism, as of yet nothing has been done. Like with Pakistan you have plausible denyability but the circumstantial evidence is compelling.

Perhaps you can tell me who owns the Independent.

http://www.independe...ts-2152327.html

Saudi Arabia is the single biggest contributor to the funding of Islamic extremism and is unwilling to cut off the money supply, according to a leaked note from Hillary Clinton.The US Secretary of State says in a secret memorandum that donors in the kingdom still "constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" and that "it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".

So with regards to Yemen where over 100 were killed by an Al-Qaeda bomber you have the real possibility that Iran are funding terrorists from the 45% Shiite population, whilst elements from Saudi Arabia are funding the Sunni terrorists. The place is one of many dangerous powderkegs in the region and to doubt some of it is tacitly state funded is somewhat unrealistic.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

Saudi Arabia is probably an immensely difficult place for outsiders to know what is going on for certain, but lets just observe that in 2002 they promised to set up a commission to investigate how their Islamic charities were funneling money to fund terrorism, as of yet nothing has been done. Like with Pakistan you have plausible denyability but the circumstantial evidence is compelling.

So with regards to Yemen where over 100 were killed by an Al-Qaeda bomber you have the real possibility that Iran are funding terrorists from the 45% Shiite population, whilst elements from Saudi Arabia are funding the Sunni terrorists. The place is one of many dangerous powderkegs in the region and to doubt some of it is tacitly state funded is somewhat unrealistic.

On your first point just as the US took terrorism and its funding a little more seriously post Sept 2001 and clamped down on Noraid activity, so Saudi wised up once AQAP came to town in 2003 hitting targets across the Kingdom. Situation still far from perfect but getting better re cooperation and proactivity.

On the Yemen, you seem to be confusing yourself and me. If it was as simple as Saudi using AQAP as a proxy against Shiites in Yemen that would make sense in incidents such as the AQAP attacks on the Shiite Houthi tribe in northern Yemen in early 2011. But if AQAP is a proxy for Saudi why would they attack the parade this week and thus undermine the government that Saudi wants to keep in power to ensure a peaceful transition and keep the Shiites under control?

Basically AQAP has an agenda far removed from Riyadh's and it probably revolves around exacerbating the tribal/ethnic/religious/national divides that wrack Yemen and use the chaos to establish themselves much as they did in Afghanistan in the 1990s. (ie exactly what they did initially in Iraq until the surge and awakening, and are attempting to do in Syria, to establish themselves and to provoke a "crusader" response thus validating their position and stance.)

Your theory that AQAP and Saudi operate in tandem stretches credulity way too far unless you have some compelling evidence and please not from those on the LoonWatch list, ie Sultan Knish, Robert Spencer et al as their objectivity is a little compromised.

An interesting and well-balanced article on the subject of Yemen is below, it makes a lot of sense and has no axe to grind or agenda to push:

http://www.nybooks.c...w-us-war-yemen/

Edited May 23, 2012 by folium

[Steely Dan]

That was actually a very good article. To come back on a few points; firstly just as Saudi intelligence has been infiltrating AQAP this may well be a two way street with certain elements of the Saudi regime aiding AQAP, this is not so far fetched as the same situation exists in Pakistan, as the discovery of Osama Bin Laden living in the army town of Abbotabad demonstrated. Of course we have Saudi Royalty, with it's opulent gin palaces and harems to protect and on the other hand their Wahhabi Imams enforcing the most extreme version of Sharia you will find anywhere. This is a dichotomy which must cause a great deal of tension, especially with the cooperation the Saudis currently display towards the U.S.

As a reminder, the Shiite end of world prophecies circulating in Iran cite the death of King Abdullah as a sign that the return of the Mahdi is near and their nuclear program must cause even greater concern to the Saudis, hence closer ties with the U.S. The cooperation with the U.S is a marriage of convenience however and if you take a look at the money spent by the Saudis to spread Wahhabi Islam in the west you can see a longer term game which has nothing to do with coexistence, but as stated this is long term - In the short term sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam is a real danger.

Finally if you insist on using loonwatch as your reference for source credibility I suggest you check out what former left winger Eric Allen Bell has to say about them -

After over a year of communication with Loonwatch.com in the making of "Not Welcome" I have come to the realization that this organization is fundamentally a radical Islamic front, covering up for terrorism, spreading distorted information about the reality of rapidly spreading Islamic fundamentalism - through lies of omission. To tell a half truth is to tell a lie and the lie that Loonwatch.com tells everyday is to cover up the atrocities within Islam and only focus on attacking its critics.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Steely Dan

[folium]

Note today's announcement that Saudi is pumping over $3 billion into Yemen to keep it in business. As the Yemeni Foreign Minister noted:

''This [aid] confirms that the Yemeni-Saudi relationship is special and that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is fully aware that the stability of Yemen is a key element for the stability of the Kingdom."

We seem to be having a rerun of the N. Yemen Civil War of 1962-70 with AQAP playing the role of Nasser and his Egyptian forces. Seems that Saudi will do the heavy lifting for the US in Yemen, as the latter are unwilling to commit much more than drones and a handful of SF spotters on the ground. The last thing Obama needs/wants is another commitment in election year. The notion that AQAP plays a proxy role for Saudi is unfounded.

Re LoonWatch it is about as credible as its counterparts JihadWatch et al, as they all are myopic, reinforcers of bigotry and extremism. Much prefer NYBR anyday as, despite its somewhat left of centre stance (though that of course is by US standards which means it is positively right of centre to Europeans!), it actually produces articles that considers both sides of an argument, rather than just endlessly plugging an agenda without regard for any alternative.

[Steely Dan]

Note today's announcement that Saudi is pumping over $3 billion into Yemen to keep it in business. As the Yemeni Foreign Minister noted:

''This [aid] confirms that the Yemeni-Saudi relationship is special and that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is fully aware that the stability of Yemen is a key element for the stability of the Kingdom."

We seem to be having a rerun of the N. Yemen Civil War of 1962-70 with AQAP playing the role of Nasser and his Egyptian forces. Seems that Saudi will do the heavy lifting for the US in Yemen, as the latter are unwilling to commit much more than drones and a handful of SF spotters on the ground. The last thing Obama needs/wants is another commitment in election year. The notion that AQAP plays a proxy role for Saudi is unfounded.

Re LoonWatch it is about as credible as its counterparts JihadWatch et al, as they all are myopic, reinforcers of bigotry and extremism. Much prefer NYBR anyday as, despite its somewhat left of centre stance (though that of course is by US standards which means it is positively right of centre to Europeans!), it actually produces articles that considers both sides of an argument, rather than just endlessly plugging an agenda without regard for any alternative.

Just for the record I never stated that support for AQAP was official Saudi government policy. But there is ample evidence that some very rich Saudis support Jihad, Osama Bin Laden being one. As with the Iranian regime I suspect there is a schism at the top of the Saudi regime and when the time comes for succession with their monarchy forces opposed to this dynasty will show their hand, most probably by fomenting rebellion using Yemen as a base.

A final word on sources; Instead of dismissing any source out of hand why not try to prove or disprove the assertions made, after all the MSM have been fed some ludicrous spin by our own governments, such as James Clappers statement that the Muslim brotherhood were 'mainly secular', and he is one of Obama's advisers. Incidentally as the Syrian situation progresses the U.S. is recognizing the Muslim brotherhood as the main opposition to Assad, so we have Libya all over again and bizarrely the U.S indirectly supporting the AQ side there whilst fighting it in Yemen, oh what a tangled web.

[folium]

Just for the record I never stated that support for AQAP was official Saudi government policy. But there is ample evidence that some very rich Saudis support Jihad, Osama Bin Laden being one. As with the Iranian regime I suspect there is a schism at the top of the Saudi regime and when the time comes for succession with their monarchy forces opposed to this dynasty will show their hand, most probably by fomenting rebellion using Yemen as a base.

A final word on sources; Instead of dismissing any source out of hand why not try to prove or disprove the assertions made, after all the MSM have been fed some ludicrous spin by our own governments, such as James Clappers statement that the Muslim brotherhood were 'mainly secular', and he is one of Obama's advisers. Incidentally as the Syrian situation progresses the U.S. is recognizing the Muslim brotherhood as the main opposition to Assad, so we have Libya all over again and bizarrely the U.S indirectly supporting the AQ side there whilst fighting it in Yemen, oh what a tangled web.

Bit of a duck & swerve on the Saudi/GCC/AQAP proxy line given your earlier posts but what the heck, it looks like we now agree that SA/GCC governments are not using AQAP as a proxy.

Given the spoils available the post-Abdullah succession will be fraught but probably manageable. Internal threats will be met by military (Saudi, Pakistani, US etc) and secret police work, reinforced by limitless cash, to crush/buy off any opposition.

External threats will be managed by the well-equipped (yet of mixed quality) Saudi military and again with Pakistani/US back up. The southern border is now being fortified and will be manned from the military city near Jizan, and supported remotely by drones and dirigibles. Shades of the Maginot Line indeed but Saudi will do whatever it takes to face off any threat that emerges within or out of Yemen. The House of Saud are pretty canny survivors.

Back again to sources. I would not look to RT News for an analysis of Putin or China's Global Times for an overview of foreign policy re the South China Sea, or indeed Fox News for information on female reproductive rights. Similarly where you have sources such as Jihad or Loon Watch their only raison d'etre its to confirm and reinforce the bigoted opinions/views of their devout readers. They are selling a product, not trying to enlighten and inform through debate and analysis of opposing views.

To be uber-pretentious I could just have quoted the late Christopher Hitchens:

"that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

or less pretentionsly from Monty Python:

"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

No it isn't.

Oh yes, it is."

etc etc