http://trueslant.com/devonpendleton/2010/01/19/what-does-rupert-murdoch-want-from-saudi-arabia/

His Royal Highness Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud is a member of the Saudi royal family.  He's 54 years old.  His total assets, according to forbes.com total $21 billion USD.  In 2002, according to a Times of London article, Alwaleed donated $27 million USD to a Palestinian telethon behest of Saudi King Fahd to aid the families of "martyrs" victimized by the Israeli occupation of the city of Jenin, which the government of Israel determined had become a breeding ground for suicide bombers. 

According to CNN, in 2001, Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned down $10 million USD from Alwaleed for 9/11 disaster relief because the Prince made the offer on the condition that the United States re-examine its policies in the Middle East and the effect these policies had on Arabs.  An effect the Prince suggested led to the 9/11 attacks.

Alwaleed owns Rotona Media, the largest media company in the Arab World.  Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp, which owns FOX News, is a large stakeholder in Rotona.  In turn, Alwaleed, through the Kingdom Holdings investment company, owns a 5.7% share in Newscorp, making him the largest single shareholder in FOX News outside of the Murdoch family.

And yet, no other major media outlet claims to be more pro-Israeli than FOX News and no other major media outlet has done to promote Islamophobia, especially since 9/11.  Rudy Giuliani is a guest on FOX News at some point nearly every week.  He's their boy.  Yet, he wouldn't take Alwaleed's money in the aftermath of 9/11. 

What gives?  Why does Rupert Murdoch take Alwaleed's money?  Why does he do business with the Prince? 

I guess oil talks and principles walk.  Murdoch knows this.  FOX News president Roger Ailes knows this.  Giuliani knows it too.  I suppose other frequent FOX guests who are pro-Israel hawks, such as Cliff May and Daniel Pipes don't have a problem with it either. 

It seems like the militant pro-Israel/Islamophobic stance of FOX is pure distraction for American right-wing sheeple.  If you fly on private jets, invest in multinational corporations, and draw seven figures a year on dividends, you get to live by the international capitalist rules, not the American patriot rules prescribed for people who drive rusty pickup trucks and live in Mobile homes.
>:(

I don't know alot about the Prince but at perhaps risk of getting flamed here, he does indeed have a point to make.

The terrorists did not attack America because they have some sort of innate hard-on for us.  They are against the USA due to our unflagging support of Israel (which is their archenemy), as well as our historical part in supporting various corrupt regimes in predominantly Islamic countries (such as the Shah in Iran and the early days of the Saddaam regime in Iraq).  These regimes were propped up by the USA either due to (a) our unconditional support of Israel, at all costs, or (b) the Cold War and keeping the Russkies at bay.

My opinion... as long as we offer nothing but our blind support for Israel, even when Israel acts corruptly and unjustly, we will continue to have a terror problem.  This problem is rooted in the spineless nature of both Democratic and Republican politicians, none of which have the 'nards to do what needs to be done... let Israel fend for itself and condemn it when it is unjust.

Note that even of the USA were 100% energy sufficient, and we did not import a single drop of oil from the Middle East, we would still have the terror problem because of the Israel situation.  We have succeeded in making the Israel problem "our problem".

I don't know alot about the Prince but at perhaps risk of getting flamed here, he does indeed have a point to make.

The terrorists did not attack America because they have some sort of innate hard-on for us.  They are against the USA due to our unflagging support of Israel (which is their archenemy), as well as our historical part in supporting various corrupt regimes in predominantly Islamic countries (such as the Shah in Iran and the early days of the Saddaam regime in Iraq).  These regimes were propped up by the USA either due to (a) our unconditional support of Israel, at all costs, or (b) the Cold War and keeping the Russkies at bay.

My opinion... as long as we offer nothing but our blind support for Israel, even when Israel acts corruptly and unjustly, we will continue to have a terror problem.  This problem is rooted in the spineless nature of both Democratic and Republican politicians, none of which have the 'nards to do what needs to be done... let Israel fend for itself and condemn it when it is unjust.

Note that even of the USA were 100% energy sufficient, and we did not import a single drop of oil from the Middle East, we would still have the terror problem because of the Israel situation.  We have succeeded in making the Israel problem "our problem".


No argument from me there.  The United States arms Israel and showers them with more foreign aid than any other country.  If any American politician -- or any American in the public sphere -- dares to say what you've just said, they get called out as anti-Semitic.  However, what you said is not anti-Semitic, and it isn't really anti-Israeli, but a lot of people figure it isn't worth mentioning because it stokes the Alan Douchowitz Israel-can-do-no-wrong whackos AND the Alex Jones the-Israeli-lobby-controls-the-world whackos.  I don't want anything to do with either extreme.  The answer is much more complex, and, in part, it has to do with the modern state of Israel being carved out by imperial forces -- the US and the UK -- after WWII.  More to the point, the first people to do the calling-out are FOX News guys.  If Tim Robbins or Susan Saranwrap called up the same relief telethon to which the Prince gave $27 million and pledged a hundred bucks, FOX would have raked the Hollywood celebs over the coals for weeks!  Difference is Prince Whistle-While-You-Work is an oil billionaire and American liberals are not.
::)

Oh this is so....  delicious in its irony...  lol...