Slashdot Mirror
Why Terror Financing is So Tough to Track Down
An anonymous reader writes "After a recent Slashdot story detailing the errant investigation into a credit card holder's dept payment, comes this article from the Christian Science Monitor discussing the commoditization of terrorism, its relationship to crime, and the difficulties encountered when trying to track "bad" money."
one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter
if its freedom fighters we have to look no further than the US goverment, iam sure Bin Laden would agree
There is something utterly wrong about the words Christian and Science being next to each other.
Why? Because you don't understand the distinction between literalists and real intellectuals who also happen to be Christians?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The other reason is that our leaders who might themselves be inept, think that the way America works is the way other societies work and think. In areas where terror is cultivated, folks are willing to do stuff for free...all in the hope that some divine power will reward them sometime in future.
The other case to consider is the fact that societies cultivating terror do their thing in the crude way. Messages are sent by horse-back and pigeons. Worse still these messages are encrypted...talk of a cold winter might mean the delivery of some important ingredients for some project. In this case, our folks at NSA simply get lost or ignore stuff like this. We also do not understand the cultures of others and are too willing to think we're the best!
To conclude, I'd like to pose a question:
Can any slashdotter tell me why despite the fact that Katrina was known to be coming, and that it would be huge, there was so much devastation amid confusion without clear leadership? This is all part of the incompetence I mentioned above.
...seems to be played under the same rules as regular big business.
Although, from reading TFA, one might suspect that this sort of thing was only happening in the middle east or europe.
We might need to look a closer to home too, but I suspect TFA is doing it's best to suggest otherwise.
Laws and law-enforcement officers are always lagging behind and will continue to do so. The degree to which they lag behind is what matters. If a dog starts running after you, and gets nearer to your heels you tend to speed up and ultimately lose focus and fall into the open manhole.
This is what law-enforcement should focus on, instead of trying to leapfrog over the terrorists.
PATRIOT act can't help much because it ends up harassing the normal people more than it can catch the bad guys.
Singapore's example is a good one. The whole system is completely integrated. My library card becomes invalid the moment my employment pass is canceled. Similarly, the credit card company automatically sends me a closure statement and the IRAS gets the remaining funds from my bank account.
However this does not hassle the common man in any way from buying beer in THailand or cigars in malaysia using his card.
Prepaying the card with a huge amount also does not trigger a warning flag because the whole system hinges on a high degree of cooperative automation.
However with disparate state laws, etc., it is difficult to enforce it in US.
Strangely i felt more under microscope in US than i did in singapore. Every time i visited BankAm in US to deposit my paycheck ($4000-$6000) i needed to provide TWO photo IDs to deposit and withdraw. Additionally i needed to fill in a few nasty forms for an amount beyond $5,000/-
In singapore since the system already has my photo and EP number and details, they don;t even bother asking. They took one good look at my face, compared it with record (seeing it was not canceled) and that's it.
Moral: Laws cannot prevent or catch criminals. Only vigilance can. Law can be used to charge criminals.
And GWB is making it worse for US agencies to get cooperation from other countries by kicking at their guts and laughing.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
But I thought that terrorism is supported by online piracy and illegal drugs and other things the government doesn't like.
It's just that an awful lot of the time, that someone is wrong.
Because those investigating the money trail are those responsible for organising and funding the terrorism in the first place.
I have a friend living in Dubai as an ex-pat and during his last visit here at Christmas we got into terrorism and financing. According to what he knows, it's an open secret that the wealthy and well connected in the Gulf States, including the UAE, finance terrorists. Whenever you fill up your tank, at least a portion of that lines the pockets of the rich oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia who then in turn find ways to get the money to terrorists.
Forget paying off your $6000 credit card bill with laundered money, the Gulf is where the real financing is coming from and buying foreign oil is partly responsible for that.
Whenever you fill up your tank, at least a portion of that lines the pockets of the rich oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia who then in turn find ways to get the money to terrorists.
Doesn't that just give you a warm and fuzzy feeling when you see someone fill up their Ford Excursion at a gas station?
If news lately is to be believed then there are thousands of terrorists running around. Rarely are building blown up, or water supplies poisoned.
Oh, so every terrorist is busy killing? No organizers? No fund raisers? No recruiters? No trainers? these people just pop up out of the ground strapped with semtex and go to work?
The insergency in Iraq is nothing but well meaning Iraqis either I take it?
This isn't a Hollywood film where a dozen guys get together and hatch a scheme. It's a bit more involved and it doesn't take much to see that for yourself, you've got the whole internet to understand how large this strcuture is, not much unlike a large corporation.
You're thinking these guys are random kooks, far from it.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Remember that government funded superbowl ad about how buying marijuana was helping put box-cutters into the hands of hijackers? Of course at the time it probably made you angry enough to want to fly an airplane into the DEA headquarters, but there probably was some grain of truth, where if you follow n-many levels of redirection then yes some percentage of that money ended up in the hands of people so designated as terrorists. But then, you think about it more, and any money you give to anyone for anything could end up in the hands of terrorists after it has changed hands a few times. It's like 7 steps to Kevin Bacon, but with money instead of movies, and Osama or whoever instead of Kevin Bacon.
Similarly the government NEVER trusts its own people.
Why do you think we have laws then?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
A lot of what they do is a "reach out and touch somebody" kind of terrorism.
They aren't blowing up shit willy nilly in 99% of countries, because it doesn't suite their purposes. Israel has been a relatively safer place since Hamas agreed to a cease fire about a year ago.
If you hit up the Wikipedia page on terrorism their first sentance is:Emphasis mine, because terrorism has rarely been about killing people, in the same way that war has rarely been about killing people.
War and terrorism have almost always been extensions of politics. Even Osama Bin Laden's original stated goals were (are?) that the US withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia and support from Israel.
To directly answer your question: We don't know how hard is it to blow up a building, because either we haven't tried or because we don't know the failure:success ratio. (If you have tried to blow up a building, I hope you work in demolitions and that you succeeded.)
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Blowing up a building is relatively easy. Getting ahold of the required explosives is much more difficult in the USA. In a place like Iraq, it is much easier to scrounge old munitions and to extract the explosives for reuse.
The terrorists are not stupid. They select targets with a desired effect in mind, not to just blow shit up.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I think they are just stupid. YOu don't even have to blow stuff up.
How hard is it to call in a bomb threat to a skyscraper?
How hard is it to claim that you injected 500 random cows with mad cows disease (or whatever).
How hard is it to mail talcum powder to a hundred people.
All those acts would cause panic and fear. If you scare the public enough not to eat beef you will collapse the economy of the west.
What these dumb fucks don't realize is that you don't have to DO anything. You just have to talk a good game. This is a lesson our politicians know very well. They just need to pull a Rumsfeld once in a while that's all.
evil is as evil does
The GP's point still stands. The above is certainly not Christian. It's not scientific either because it is not based in measueable, repeatable evidence.
The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan effort initiated not from Congress but from the families of 9/11 victims. Don't forget that the Commission was opposed by the Bush Administration every step of the way! I'm not claiming it is unassailable, but a blanket assertion that it was a "coverup" or "disinfo-psyop" just won't fly. Where is the evidence that they covered up or lied about this particular story? Is Snopes a psyop too? Conspiracy theories are very tempting, but sometimes more logical explanations exist.
Terrorism financing is so hard to track down because terrorism doesn't exist until its labelled as such. The actual distinction between terrorism and war is nada (both require a lawmaker's stamp). Its obvious 9/11 was nasty, clearly characterizable as warfare. Think of the organized crime wars of past eras or the Janjaweed in Sudan now. What makes terrorism even more difficult to detect is that people who are not criminal, are sympathetic to the enemy. Bush says over and over that the US is not at war with Iraq, but that's just not true. The real Iraq is still there, and those people hate the US and want us out. Really, we're at war with all those people - right or wrong. I'm not very sympathetic to them, because I don't know many. I just don't think its a war worth winning. That's because I would do OK with expensive oil and a nervous Israel. I'd probably do better since there'd be less cars trying to run me over on my bike. And my Israeli friends would probably spend more time here in the US instead of Tel Aviv and I'd get to see them more.
The US tries to sell this as a war on terror when its really just a war on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be Iran. But by trying to not be at war when you are, you create this confusion. Why did I say Saudi Arabia? Because they're a monarchy chiefly supported by the US and Britain (a puppet dicatorship if you will - watch 'Lawrence of Arabia' that's the Sauds). That's why so many of the 9/11 hijackers were from there.
The same thing happened back in the 1980's with Northern Ireland. Plenty of donation money for poor Irish made its way to violent means back in the 80's. I lived in Boston back then and the level of conspiracy was intense. Donate to a good Irish cause - some of the money found its way to the IRA. I remember the winks and nods at Southie day in 1984. The British and Irish were at war, but the Irish couldn't fight against a nuclear power with conventional means. The Irish didn't want to take over Britain, they just wanted to kick them out of Northern Ireland (or least stop the paramilitary Protestant death squads). But in the end the British drew a truce reigned in the death squads and none of those terrorists is in a place like gitmo. That's because the British didn't have the heart for decimating the Northern Irish Catholics, which is what they would've had to do to win. I'll give the British props for not being as inhuman as the US is now.
Maybe eventually, Americans will realize you can't have a war on terror because terror is a form of war. In fact it was originally coined by the French as a form of warfare on their own population. They had to keep all those citizens in line after the revolution and so they did some pretty terrible (terrorizing) things.
To win this war, you need to rephrase the whole thing. Define your enemy. In this case it would be Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, maybe Syria soon too. But since the US population isn't ready to accept that this country is an imperialist on the scale of the Roman Empire, we have this stupid 'war on terror' confusion. If you want to win, you need to get everyone on board and lock up or kill every possible enemy and bomb them into oblivion. Think Dresden in WW2 or Nagasaki. That's how you break the enemy's morale. You have to decimate them. Think hundreds of Gitmo's. That's how you win a war. You kill them.
I personally don't have the stomach for it, and I think its a stupid gamble that only people who havn't read their history would make.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know that this sounds like an off the wall conspiracy theory but when you think about it, it's true.
Methods that peek into people's credit card transactions won't find terrorists. Terrorists are, as much as people might not want to admit, intelligent people. They are not going to do anything that gets them noticed. This includes buying semtex with their credit cards.
I'm pretty sure that the Government knows this obvious truth. So if they are not using the PATRIOT Act to spy on terrorists (since things like the PATRIOT Act is useless in finding terrorists), then who are they spying on? You of course!
The whole idea of a 'war on terror' is not a new one. Various Governments have used the same scare mongering tactics to try and control their populations. I know I'm not saying anything here that people don't already know but I feel it has to be said until people actually listen.
Did you pay taxes? Then the funding came from you.
Maybe you missed the 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS that the Pentagon announced 'misplaced' on September 10, 2001.
Just think about it, that's the money that the 'Defense' Department WON'T admit to having used to kill people. But all of it comes from us.
Interestingly, some CS'ers claim that Einstein did some hanging around CS reading rooms later in his life.
Why would it be surprising or interesting that a bunch of nutballs are trying to convince everyone that Einstein was a secret fan of their organization? Don't you find it a bit "interesting" that if he was spending so much time hanging out in CS reading rooms that his friends and colleagues haven't mentioned this at all?
Short of banning work, there's no way to stop that source of funding.
In my view, there is a huge amount of scaremongering going on. Terrorists use terrorism because its CHEAP. It doesn't need much funding. The 9/11 thing was an exception.
Laws preventing you from paying cash for cars (here in the UK) are not going to have any impact on terrorism. They probably do affect the disposal of stolen money, and they sure as hell inconvenience law abiding citizens, who then assume "its being done for a good reason" and that the government is "tough on terrorism".
Its in the same league as my proposed ban on short skirts to combat inflation - it works if you apply the rules strictly - not because there is a cause and effect relationship in the scientific sense, but because it gives the general public the impression the government is "taking stringent action".
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
But this sort of thing has been going on for centuries. And the methods by which we establish who is a conspirator and who is not are just as accurate.
"It is first agreed and settled among them, what suspected persons shall be accused of a plot; then, effectual care is taken to secure all their letters and papers, and put the owners in chains. These papers are delivered to a set of artists, very dexterous in finding out the mysterious meanings of words, syllables, and letters: for instance, they can discover a close stool, to signify a privy council; a flock of geese, a senate; a lame dog, an invader; the plague, a standing army; a buzzard, a prime minister; the gout, a high priest; a gibbet, a secretary of state; a chamber pot, a committee of grandees; a sieve, a court lady; a broom, a revolution; a mouse-trap, an employment; a bottomless pit, a treasury; a sink, a court; a cap and bells, a favourite; a broken reed, a court of justice; an empty tun, a general; a running sore, the administration.
"When this method fails, they have two others more effectual, which the learned among them call acrostics and anagrams. First, they can decipher all initial letters into political meanings. Thus N, shall signify a plot; B, a regiment of horse; L, a fleet at sea; or, secondly, by transposing the letters of the alphabet in any suspected paper, they can lay open the deepest designs of a discontented party. So, for example, if I should say, in a letter to a friend, 'Our brother Tom has just got the piles,' a skilful decipherer would discover, that the same letters which compose that sentence, may be analysed into the following words, 'Resist--, a plot is brought home--The tour.'"
-- Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
What if things are going just peachy?
What if the main objective is not to win the war, but to maintain a state of constant war? If this were the case, then it would achieve several things. . .
1. It would keep the American Public in a state of perpetual fear. When people are scared, they don't think rationally. They don't mind having their freedoms revoked, they are much easier to herd like cattle. They do as they are told. The upshot being that the dictator gets to bend rules and stay in power for as long as he can maintain the state of 'war'.
2. It keeps money flowing in huge amounts from the public coffers to the pockets of oil men and weapons salesmen, (both of which Bush is). His fellow staff share this trait. Peace is not profitable.
Oil was selling at around $13 per barrel before the first Gulf War. When bombs started dropping in the desert, oil jumped to $40 per barrel. --A few people made a lot of money overnight. The brokers were wetting themselves. And they couldn't wait for it to happen again, which it has.
I think the 'war on terror' confusion has more to do with deliberate marketing than with error.
-FL
The problem is not in the investigating. It's the fact that official investigators either don't like to do it, or if they do, their CO's don't allow them to do it because the people at the top know exactly where it will lead.
For instance. . .
Why is it that nobody has yet investigated the people who benefited directly from suspicious trades on the stock market in the couple of days leading up to 9/11? Isn't that one of the first things to be looked at in any criminal investigation?
Well not here. And why EVER could that be? Well, because if you brought those people to light, it would expose the secret government behind the attacks. --And by "secret government", I am not talking about dark rooms filled with blinking lights and spy types. I'm simply talking about ranking members of the current structure in both the civil and military sides who all quietly hold certain views and unilaterally agree to wield their power toward common causes which the voting public has no knowledge of. It happens all the damned time. It's called by other names, like Cronyism, and Corruption.
The rest of this is bullshit. Terrorism is a lark. (I'm not saying that there aren't very pissed off people with bombs, but I AM saying that they are strongly encouraged by governments eager to reap the benefits of fear they produce, which can easily be used to fortify a fascist government's rule.)
And the apologist crap fed to us by the 9/11 commission, (created by the government to investigate the, um, government), was just more of the same line of garbage.
I've been called a 'conspiracy theorist' by a lot of people who seem to think that label by itself invalidates everything I have to say, and they have told me for the absolute dumbest reasons that 'conspiracies do not exist'. I can't figure out how the heck the media managed to convince the public of this when organized crime clearly EXISTS, the Manhattan Project EXISTED quite effectively, and how people can say that "It's impossible to keep a secret", (which is true), but then ignore all the gushing leaks in the official story. "Those leaks don't mean anything because that would imply a conspiracy, and conspiracies don't exist because it's impossible for a government to keep a secret; there would be leaks!" Uh, yeah. Thanks for the insight.
Anyway. . .
The Christian Science Monitor? I'm sorry, but when religious twits with a made-up air of reason, (except where it concerns their sacred cows and various blind spots), tell me that "It's sooo hard to follow the money", I'm afraid I'm just not going to be able to take them very seriously.
Please do not forget; The Christians are not just foolish, they are actually Insane. They WANT to see the end of the world. It's in their most sacred book of books as the Big Cool Thing which will launch them into Heaven. Let me repeat that; Christians actually want to see nukes dropping.
--And the end of the world, in their view, must be preceded by the domination of Israel over the Middle East, which is why the U.S. sends so much funding over there. --Though, when the goal of Jewish domination over the Arab world has been met, if they don't all then convert to Christianity, they'd better watch out. The Savior has a mean attitude, after all. He's only nice and forgiving on some pages, apparently.
So Christians Monitoring Science? Please.
-FL
How hard is to fake a state license? How hard is to obtain one with false pretenses? How hard is to steal or borrow one from a legit business that holds them? Remember security is as strong as the weakest link.
:-P
The sad thing is that the most used something is the easier it will be to get to it. The state can throw one thowsand one one requirements and paper works into the matter, but people have to get work done in the end of the day. And if one hundred people have access to use explosive this is one hundred links in your security chain that have a variable strength.
I always think that is easier to undermine terrorism by eliminating the need for it. Of course that this would mean for the US and Europe to actualy spend money to help the other nations instead of taxing them with politic and economic power. I think that is easier to convince every chineese to jump at the same time...
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
As Senator Kucinich said, I think we see a pattern here. But the problem is not Republican or Democrat - it's that our government is fundamentally broken. I'm voting straight down the line this year - voting out every single incumbant, regardless of how much I hate the alternative.
The alternative? You're smart enough to recognize the incumbants suck. Why do you fail to recognize that the guy on the other side of the aisle is just the same guy wearing a different suit? You're right: The problem is not Republican or Democrat - it's Republican and Democrat.
Vote for a third party, even if its not mine, please.
From your link:
A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.
They cite this as evidence that nothing was fishy, but that all rests on the "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda" assumption, which begs the question. If we reverse that one assumption, we get a very different conclusion, since that would mean that the US based investor and the newsletter effectively pumped a large amount of money out to people unknown--exactly the sort of thing you might do if you wanted to fund sleeper cells. (Think of it this way--if you had some way to throw very large quantities of someone else's money out of a downtown window at a specific time and date, you could use it to fund your cohorts by having a few of them "just happen" to be in the mob below. Not efficient, but then it's not your money).
Further, without quantifying both trades, it's not clear that the institutional investor didn't clean up on the deal as well.
--MarkusQ
It talks about how both Islamic extremism and neo-conservatism both have a lot in common, especially in the fact that both have this absolutist, idealized view of the world.
In other news, both Hitler and Churchil believed in the rightness of their causes. Both were willing to fight to the last soldier or civilian if that's what it took.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
It's funny. I see a lot more talk about pure good vs. pure evil and more fearmongering on Daily Kos and Democratic underground than I hear from any conservatives!
Most acts of violence (terrorism is defined by those in power) are driven by fear, anger power and greed. The people at the top are generally driven by power and greed whereas the people at the bottom are generally driven by fear and anger. They are people just like you and me that have been driven into situations where they feel that their acts are their only way out.
The countries producing terrorists currently have perhaps been ill-treated by "the West", but then a lot of other countries have been much worse treated. West Africa lost large parts of its population to Atlantic slave trade, what the Belgians did in Congo is quite unspeakable, the sufferings of the people in Indochina due to colonial wars was pretty bad etc. By these standards, countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Egypt etc got away very lightly. It is instructive to compare India and the Middle East/North Africa region. Both old state bearing cultures, similar history of subjugation by Western powers, decolonialized at about the same time. Huge social inequalities and ethnic tensions. Do the Indians set the world ablaze? Wouldn't the Vietnamese have much more reason to want to get back at the US than any Moroccan? And so on.
No, it is a questions what you want to do with your problems. We in the west didn't make these people terrorists. They choose to become terrorists.
We could certainly be a little bit more helpful to the rest of the world, but we are not making it a better place by absolving other people of their personal responsibilities.
Minor quibble here: Dennis Kucinich is not a senator, he is a congressman. (From my district, in fact.) But I couldn't agree more that we need at least a viable third party.
I am officially gone from
For those who want to know it, the work of the norwegian-born judge Eva Joly, in the context of international corruption that occurred inside the French Elf Aquitaine oil company, is worth considering. In the following interview (http://www.subversiv.com/doc/elf/eva-rfi.htm), she says in particular (translated from French) :
Here is an interesting excerpt of Eva Joly's book :
Thus nowadays, people whine because terrorists take advantage of the ability to transfer big sums of money with very few control. But if over the last 20 years, we hadn't tolerated the spread of a now unforeseen level of corruption in politics and in business, perhaps the situation would be safer for all of us.
It could be argued that after all, people just get what their passivity, their lack of concern, and their irresponsability finally deserves. Because one can not really say that such facts are not known : the problem is much more that people like you and me just don't care, thus they do not raise their voices sufficiently loud to obtain that these problems become seriously - and widely - discussed. As a result, nothing changes, and our policy-makers maintain their tolerance for corruption. Without the risk of any real negative feedback, why should they change their behaviour ?
Without getting into specifics I agree with you on these points. However I do have a suggestion for like-minded thinkers: vote for a non-major party. Pick your favorite, just as long as it's anything but republican/democrat. The American government is stifling under the "two" party system, they've been around for so long that they control every aspect of the game and know just how to manipulate voting demographics to get their man in office then execute whatever their true agenda is. As with Bush we've seen that this agenda rarely follows the official party stance (republicans favor small government, suuuure). And afterall, isn't the official party line what most voters are buying into? I don't know the exact numbers (so please, respond with the correct info instead of insults) but a non-major party requires something like 5% of the vote in a national election to become nationally recognized. That means a lot! It means a guaranteed spot in the national debate, and a whole host of other advantages that normally stack the deck against non-republocratican parties.
So remember, when voting for "anyone but the status quo", vote for a third party so we can finally try to break the endless and brainless belief that there are only two party choices in this country! Get some new blood in the system and at the very least shake up the damn incumbent parties and let them know they're on notice!
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
You are quite right about the fear.
The rest of the world doesn't understand why American conservatives aren't frightened about what's happening.
We're in the middle of two endless wars which have killed tens of thousands and crippled hundreds of thousands. Americans are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't that frighten you?
We've blown one trillion dollars on the war in Iraq. One trillion dollars -- do you have any idea how much that is? Think how much you could do with a million dollars. Now imagine getting a thousand times as much. You could give a million dollars to everyone you knew and still be staggeringly rich. Now imagine a thousand times more than that.
How are we going to *pay* for this trillion dollars? Most of these expenses haven't even hit us yet and come from decades of caring for the tens of thousands of young men and women that have been crippled by this pointless war. We've written a trillion dollars in bad checks -- doesn't that frighten you?
We have a President that has failed at every single thing he's done. We've gone from disaster to disaster, we lost the World Trade Center, we lost New Orleans, we lost Bin Laden, we are losing every day in Iraq. We watched over days while Katrina slowly destroyed New Orleans and, just like on 9/11, he did nothing, nothing at all -- but this time we could see him caught like a deer in the headlights. Perhaps New Orleans was beyond saving, but we'll never know because Bush didn't even try -- he didn't even pretend to try.
So we have a President who gathers disaster around him like flies to honey and then is incapable of acting competently.
And there are three more years of this to go.
To the "rest of the world" -- "liberals", "socialists", and pretty well every single non-American -- conservative America is like a bus driven at high speed by a madman, and we are terrified that it will take a lot of us out with it when it finally crashes and burns.
And we think the reason that the few of you aren't frightened is that you're also mad, and blind to boot.
... and that's still an awful lot of money. That's $3500 per person on top of all the taxes and expenses they're already paying.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!