Reports of deadly terrorist attacks are a regular feature of each day’s news -- just like the weather report.

Who bears the responsibility for these grisly murders? The obvious culprits are those who plan and carry out the attacks. Also guilty are the countries that allow the terrorists to operate in their midst.

The Western press is also guilty of whitewashing the enormity of this evil. When a man kills his wife during an argument, the newspapers refer to him a murderer. Yet, those who carry out heinous terrorist atrocities are typically described by such terms as “extremists” or "militants", thereby connoting less condemnation.

To cite just one example in 2002, Muslim terrorists kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. They then sawed his head off while he was awake, and posted the video on YouTube. This was not a subhuman act – it was subanimal. Yet, in a subsequent article on the event, CNN wrote: “Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British-born Islamic militant, was sentenced to death by hanging in connection with Pearl's murder.” Was it correct to somewhat dignify this Godless thug by calling him an “Islamic militant?” Rather, he was a cowardly, cruel, and depraved Islamic cutthroat (pardon the pun).

The repeated use of politically correct words that downplay the enormity of these atrocities creates a measure of acceptance that quiets the public outrage over terrorist murder. This, in turn, makes it somewhat easier for the killings to continue unopposed. Morally speaking, those behind these distortion have the blood of the terrorist victims on their hands.

In addition to the people who actually kill innocents, those who train and dispatch them, the countries that host them and the press, there is yet one other major contributor to terrorism – those who finance the terrorists. They are the elephant in the room that people do not see.

The bombs the terrorists use to kill innocent civilians are sophisticated and expensive, and up-to-date military weaponry sells for untold millions. Yet, today’s Islamists do not suffer from a lack of funding. Has anyone ever heard of a terrorist who didn’t blow up a supermarket because he couldn’t afford the bomb? Also consider that these people have had the wherewithal to wage war for years on end, first against the army and air force of Libya, later against that of Syria, and now too, against Iraq.

Hamas and Hizb’allah are Shiite groups are funded by petrodollars from Shiite Iran. However, the recent wars against the armies of Libya, Syria, and Iraq were mainly fought by Sunnis. Who gave the Sunnis the tens of billions of dollars needed to conduct these protracted military campaigns?

Ancient Jewish Wisdom teaches: “A man does not sin unless there is something in it for him” (Talmud, Kiddushin 63b). This is saying that people might volunteer to help the poor, despite not receiving recognition or personal gain. However, they will not help others rob a bank unless they too will benefit from the crime.

As such, people do not fund terrorist killings simply because they believe in the cause; they only do so when they themselves will also be getting something. The question should therefore be asked: who stands togain from donating billions so that Sunni terrorists can kill and wage war for years on end? (Also, who has that kind of money to spend?)

I feel that the answer is obvious. The primary sponsors of Al Qaeda and other Sunni terrorists are likely none other than the “pro-Wesernt” Arab oil-producing states.The citizens of these countries are relatively poor, yet, their ruling princes pocket the national oil wealth and live in incredible opulence. The plain folk in those countries must therefore be kept at bay so that they don’t stage a popular revolt and do unto their leaders as the terrorists did to Daniel Pearl.

When faced with this same type of problem 2,000 years ago, the leaders of Ancient Rome instituted “Bread and Circuses,” a program that distracted the masses by providing some basic necessities together with entertainment (such as gladiators fighting to the death) Today’s billionaire sheiks do much the same thing. The citizens receive some “bread” from the oil wealth such as very low prices at the gas pump. As for “circuses,” they whip the public into an anti-Western and anti-Zionist frenzy by orchestrating incessant ongoing terrorist mayhem that neither abates nor escalates into all-out war.

Now it makes sense. The terrorist leaders take the money and continue murdering others, for it gives them wealth and power. The sheiks are happy with this outcome because the ensuing turmoil and anti-Western hysteria distracts the masses, thereby enabling them to continue plundering the riches of their countries. To cite one example, “In 1996, Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei threw a two-week-long, $25 million shindig for his own birthday.”

Whether (as I allege) billions of oil dollars are being given to the Sunni terrorists by “pro-Western” Arab countries should be relatively easy to ascertain. Payments of that magnitude must be done electronically, and that is traceable; such huge amounts of cash cannot be transported on camels.

If it proves true that Saudi Arabia and its allies are indeed “The elephant in the room,” behind Sunni terrorism, the appropriate U.S. response would be to simply demand that all such payments end immediately. Otherwise, those so called “allies” of ours who are causing the death of so many U.S. servicemen will be seen as having issued a declaration of war against the USA, and America should respond accordingly.

If this U.S. threat is real, the sheiks will stop bankrolling the Sunni terrorists, and that will force them to go out of business.