Skip to comments.Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism
Posted on 11/14/2007 3:38:07 PM PST by ddtorquee
The United States has largely eliminated the infrastructure and operational leadership of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network over the past five years. However, its ideological offspring continue to proliferate across the globe.
American efforts to combat this contagion are hamstrung by the fact that its ideological and financial epicenter is Saudi Arabia, where an ostensibly pro-Western royal family governs through a centuries-old alliance with the fanatical Wahhabi Islamic sect. In addition to indoctrinating its own citizens with this extremist creed, the Saudi government has lavishly financed the propagation of Wahhabism throughout the world, sweeping away moderate interpretations of Islam even within the borders of the United States itself.
The Bush administration has done little to halt this ideological onslaught beyond quietly (and unsuccessfully) urging the Saudi royal family to desist. This lack of resolve is rooted in American dependence on Saudi oil production, fears of instability in the kingdom, wishful thinking about democracy promotion as an antidote to religious extremism, and preoccupation with confronting Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpolitician.com ...
the Spread of Sunni Theofascism ^
got to say one thing, this war on terror has surely added a couple new pages to the Webster Dictionary
If the title “Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism” had been written in the most factually correct form, the entire text of the article would have been redundant, because the title, correctly, would have said:
Saudi Arabia + Wahhabism = spread of Sunni Theofascism.
This article is about things this administration does not want to talk about. Heck, most Americans don’t want to talk about this.
And the Shiites don't like that fact, and want them back in their possession.
I don't. This was extremely unsettling read.
Had I understood Islamic fascism, its variants, its growth, its multiple organizational proponents and its core foundational element in the various Islamic terror groups, in 1990, I would have preferred to see us, at that time, first allow Saddam to have his way with Saudi Arabia (which some say was his goal) and only afterwards, after the heart of Arabia was his, then gone after him. (in my dreams)
Islam is incompatible with democracy. As soon as they vote in the mullahs and sharia, democracy is dead.
Yes, all of what you offered would have been most helpful - in my view - in 1990, before we went and saved the Saudis from Saddam. That was my point - the state of our knowledge, myself in particular from my point of view, in 1990 not today.
The Israelis managed to halt an onslaught of attacks against them through the use of targeted assassination. There is no reason why we should not do the same.
That is, we currently target the terrorists, but so far, to a great extent, we have ignored the instigators and the financiers.
Now, I am *not* saying that we should do it the same way as the Israelis, with overt military attacks. We should still kill many such people, but “make it look like an accident”, or even better, make it look like natural causes.
Worldwide, there are probably fewer than 2,000 such instigators and financiers encouraging and supporting terrorists, and being instrumental in their recruitment and training and propaganda efforts. If we could exterminate the majority of those 2,000, only a tiny number would be replaced with individuals as effective.
But an epidemic of heart attacks, strokes, fatal slip and fall accidents, car crashes, undiagnosed illnesses, drug and alcohol abuse, and obvious homicide implicating one of their brethren, would severely impact them across the board.
There are also a large number of indeterminate individuals, who may play such an indirect role that exterminating them would be problematic.
So as an alternative, I propose we brainwash them. Yes, and not said in jest, either. Perhaps with a tiny cochleal implant to refresh their programming, with practice, in 48 to 72 hours, we might convince a firebrand cleric to instead preach peace, non-violence and democracy.
How would such brainwashing harm either them or their followers? The path of peace is superior, if at all possible, to violence, death and war. So perhaps it will save his soul, in addition to saving the lives of his followers.
“Yep he tried.”
In my “memory by osmosis” from all the books and papers on the WOT I have read these past few years, (1) we and the Saudis believed that Saddam actually had the tiny Gulf States and the Saudis in his sites and (2)because of that belief and only because of that belief we were able to park our forces in the Saudi kingdom. Others have questioned if we would have been able to build the coalition otherwise. One could therefore say from all that, that the actual strategic goal was not “saving Kuwait” as it was “not having to save” the Saudis.
Some say: “Yes, yes”, but Saddam then would gave gotten the Saudi oil. My answer is: “yea, so what, for how long?”
This is an excellent article.
Ah, our dear friends again. If it weren’t for their massive oil reserves, the Saudis would just be a bunch of sand rats stuck in the stone age. Instead they’re filthy rich and actually have an influence on world politics. Y’know, maybe we should’ve let Saddam have them and then bombed him—kill two birds with one stone.
The Pope doesn’t have an army any longer and the Buddhists don’t fight anyone.
Perhaps the best solution is to just take all American influence and knowledge out of Saudi Arabia and see how long the Royal family survives. With respect to the absurd price of oil, just tie it to commodity prices, for example, one bushel of corn for one barrel of oil.
Aside from that not happening, Saudis wouldn’t miss the USA all that much.