Skip to comments.Our enemies the Saudis
Posted on 06/02/2002 6:40:07 PM PDT by vannrox
Nation & World 6/3/02
By Michael Barone
Our enemies the Saudis
Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis. Perhaps as many as 80 percent of the prisoners held at Guantánamo are Saudis. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, and al Qaeda was supported by large contributions from Saudis, including members of the Saudi royal family.
The Saudis' cooperation with our efforts to track down the financing of al Qaeda appears to be somewhere between minimal and zero. They got us to let members of the bin Laden family scamper out of the United States on a private jet shortly after September 11. They refuse to provideas almost every other country hasmanifests of plane passengers flying to the United States.
Such behavior is nothing new. The Saudis stymied the FBI investigation of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. The Saudis refused a U.S. request in 1996 that they take custody of bin Laden; he went to Afghanistan instead. They refused in 1995 to hand over Imad Mughniyah, believed responsible for the bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
Far from aiding our efforts against terrorism, the Saudis have worked against themto protect the terrorists in their own ranks. Also, the Saudis have praised suicide bombings and raised money for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Government-controlled Saudi media have frequently spread the vilest kinds of anti-U.S. and anti-Jewish propaganda.
Such has been the behavior of those the State Department has long referred to as "our friends the Saudis." It would be more accurate to call them our enemies the Saudis.
Freedoms? Zero for seven. The Saudis run a totalitarian society. Not one of the seven freedoms identified by President Bush in his State of the Union speechthe rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice, religious toleranceis honored by the Saudis.
There is no free speech and no freedom of religion (during the Gulf War the Saudis did not allow President Bush to conduct a religious service on Saudi soil), and women are restricted and physically assaulted by religious police who prowl the streets (and, by some accounts, would not allow teenage girls to leave a burning school, lest they not be properly clad; 15 girls died).
But the Saudis are not content to run a totalitarian society at home; they are trying to export their totalitarian Wahhabi Islam around the world. Since the Gulf War, the Saudis have financed Wahhabi clerics and Wahhabi-run mosques and schools in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Western Europe, and the United States.
The results can be seen on the Edgware Road in London or Leesburg Pike in Northern Virginia: Journalists have no trouble finding young people spouting the most vituperative anti-U.S. and anti-Jewish propaganda and swearing that they would fight for Islam against the United States. The Saudis are waging war against us, financing the spread of the idea that our free society must be overthrown and totalitarian Wahhabi Islam must be imposed by force.
So why do some still call the Saudis our friends? Because they have the power to keep oil prices down? That leverage is being reduced by increased oil production by our friends Russia and Mexico. Because they are anti-Communist? Communism is no longer a threat. Because they are used to heeding the mellifluous advice of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar? What has he done to stop al Qaeda or the propagation of totalitarian Wahhabi Islam? Because we depend on Saudi military bases? Despite Pentagon denials, it seems we are wisely dispersing our forces in the gulf.
It may not be prudent yet to speak the truth out loud, that the Saudis are our enemies. But they should know that it is increasingly apparent to the American people that they are effectively waging war against us. And they should know that we have the capacity to destroy their military, presumably in a matter of hours. The Saudis' eastern provinces, with their oil, could be given to their Shiite Muslim majority, now oppressed by the Sunni Muslim Saudi rulers.
The holy cities of Mecca and Medina could be returned to the custody of the Hashemites (Jordan's King Abdullah's family), who unlike the Saudis are direct descendants of the prophet Mohammed. Let the Saudis have the sands of central Arabia and their bank accounts in Switzerland, hotel suites in London, and villas on the Riviera.
President Bush has said that we must have regime change in Iraq to be safe from terrorism. It is increasingly clear that we must have regime change in Saudi-ruled Arabia as well.
The use of the present tense verb "is,"
earns the U.S Snooze an "Elvis Bin Laden" award.
No Admiral I want them dead not excuses
Wipe them out all of them.
The one in which the Saudi Prince tells Bush just how the cow ate the cabbage.
A Picture of the Saudi Prince with the President of the United Sates is on par with the Picture of Hitler and the Pope.
Are you new here or is it just that you don't pay attention? The reason Bush said what he did right after the attacks is because he knew that what Osama bin Laden was aiming for was an all out war with Islam. In case you haven't noticed it, that's what they were trying to accomplish with the Israel/Palestinian situation, and it's what they are trying to accomplish with the India/Pakistan situation.
Part of winning is making sure you don't give your opponent what he wants.
And some of us knew it before 911. Don't waste your PR money, Arabia. Your actions speak louder than words.
Born to kill - Allah's will
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that before somebody comes to the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" endgame, that perhaps we could do something to convince the "good" ones to reign in the bad guys, so that it would be a little easier for us to tell who is who. The problem is, coming up with the proper carrot/stick approach.
It's times like this I almost wish we had a real outright straight-talking Prez like Pat Buchanan, who might just come up with a solution like pre-emptorily targeting the Grande Mosque at Mecca, "just in case" somebody speaking in the name of Islam decides to use some sort of weapon of mass destruction against us.
Radical thought, admittedly, but maybe it would provoke some serious debate within Islam as to who actually spoke for the religion, the "Religion of Peace" folks or the IslamoNazis who just wanna kill all the rest of us.... [just my $.02 worth]
The simplest remedy is to replace the fundamentalist regimes with secular regimes -- the Ataturk solution. The Arab man-in-the-street has no real reason to hate Jews or Christians, but is incited to fanaticism by the mullahs and imams. It is this leadership class that must be eliminated with extreme prejudice. One of the few points on which I agree with the NSDAP regime is on the issuing of the "Commissar Order"; just replace "commissar" with "fundamentalist cleric" and the thing could be used verbatim.
The only twist I would add is to have the offending clerics stoned to death by women -- preferably college-educated.
Both the Egyptian, and Saudi governments are in our pocket, and both government funds their media, and their clerics, and we never attempted to ask them point blank to reform their culture of hate.
We know that all the venomous hate comes from the clerics and the media, so why we have never insisted that these government ONLY PROMOTE PRO-WESTERN MEDIA AND CLERICS? If they do, we can have some hope that future generations can be better. Just imagine the cultural engineering that is taking place in this country because of the leftist media, and education system! If the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt both orchestrated a revamp of its clerics and media bosses, then the soft sell, and the gradual changes, coupled with taboo subjects can be accomplished in these countries.
The longer the US keeps thinking that Islam is a religion, and as a government, we should not interfere in anybodys religion, we will never see the end of this hate. Our leaders keep betraying us by avoiding these confrontations with our enemies, the Egyptians, and the Saudis. The Egyptians are the brains behind the hate, and the Saudis are the purse that funds these terrorists.
There are two reasons. First, there is distributivism. The Federal government has no business in enforcing its will on states in contravention of the Tenth Amendment. Second, I do not agree that there is such a thing as an hereditary contract; if slavery is morally insupportable, then so is Lincoln's idea of an indissoluble Union. They are both based on the concept that it is possible to inherit a condition of servitude -- in the one instance to a single master, and in the other instance to an institution, the Federal government. Whether or not the southern states seceded because of slavery or tariffs is immaterial. In my opinion, they could have seceded because they didn't like Lincoln's hairstyle. In effect, the southerners were simply refusing to renew a contract that they never initiated, unless one assumes the legal fiction that the persons who ratified the Constitution in 1787 were "virtual" representatives of ALL who came after - a sort of political version of Original Sin.
The gradual assumption by the Federal government of absolute power and authority follows a set pattern:
1) Locate an "evil."
2) Drum up popular support to eradicate that evil
3) Re-interpret (or totally ignore) the Constitution, in order to
3) Pass laws to eradicate the evil . . .
. . . and here's where the fun begins . . .
4) Construe the laws passed in 3) as the new de facto interpretation of the Constitution, thus bypassing the amendment process.
5) Use this precedent to extend Federal authority into areas not directly related to the original evil.
6) Repeat as desired, until the Constitution comes to mean the opposite of what is written and what had been (under "original intent") commonly understood.
This was done with slavery, racial discrimination, drunken driving, the war on drugs, child pornography, and terrorism. Each evil has been used by the government as a lever to pry apart the Bill of Rights, by playing upon the good intentions of an easily deluded, but well-intentioned, electorate.
I don't believe you typed this Wilsonian tripe. The simplest remedy?! How to bring continental Europe into the Promised Land of Anlgo/Saxon moderation and prosperity and stop all that nasty blood-letting? Why, by eliminating the Roman Catholic Royal families---the whole fanatical, superstitious leadership class--with extreme prejudice.
The mythical "Arab man-in-the-street", on whose psychology everyone seems to be an expert these days, will probably make us long for the good old days of mere mullahish fanaticism and corruption when he gets a chance to fashion his version of a People's Paradise.
(It must have been a friend; maybe sitting on your lap; maybe with an advanced degree in human psychology....)
Thank you. I needed a good dose of hopelessness. Do you have any idea what you have just typed?
And while we're at it why don't we outlaw human unhappiness? Root causes and all that, you know.....
The elimination or re-indoctrination (forcible or otherwise) of the leadership class is the surest way to win the "hearts and minds" of the population, if only by default. This is why post-reformation regimes in England executed Catholic clergy on sight. And England became securely Protestant thereby.
And the Soviets short-circuited Polish resistance by doing the same to the Polish aristocracy, educators, clergy, and military officers.
On a tactical level, this is why snipers exist.
Of course, this is ungentlemanly (which was always the criticism of aiming for the officers), but it is the most humane solution insofar as it eliminates the threat from Islam without requiring the complete annihilation of the Moslem population. Political assassination is preferable to genocide.
I am open to the suggestion of alternate courses of action.
And a lucky thing the Soviets did that or they wouldn't be the thriving society they are today.
But I can see the charm of the clean cut, the new deal, the fresh start as well as the next person. A few well-trained psychologists and the Man-On-The-Street---any street, anywhere---will be like putty in our hands.
The future is so difficult to predict anyway. Why worry about banana peels?
"...Habsburg--the very name evoked memories of Roman Catholicism, of the Armada, the Inquisition, Metternich, Lafayette jailed in Olmutz and Silvio Pellico in Brunn's Spielburg fortress. Such a state had to be shattered, such a dynasty had to disappear. Thus--finally--the House of Austria went into exile, to be replaced by a simple common man from Austria, and allged house painter, a man who drowned the world in a flood of blood and tears...."
US Forces In Philippines Facing CIA-Trained Abu Sayyaf Terrorists
By MICHAEL A. BENGWAYAN
Basilan, Philippines (March 10, 2002) --- Unknown to most, the U.S. troops especially the Special Forces now in this Abu Sayyaf lair, are facing not merely a rag-tag band of bandits but hard core Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-trained fighters.
Most of the Abu Sayyaf leaders have fought...in the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980s after receiving training from the CIA, battling some of Russia1s best fighting paratroopers, a reality the Philippine military seemed to have forgotten.
And they are now better and well armed, thanks to the millions of dollars of ransom collected from the so many hostages they have taken, some of which they brutally tortured, beheaded and killed.
According to former Philippine Senate Minority Leader Nene Pimentel, the Abu Sayyaf are remnants of about 800 Filipino Muslim Moujahideens who, together with thousands of other Muslim jihad warriors from several countries, were recruited, trained and financed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to fight the CIA-sponsored proxy war in Afghanistan against the Russians in 1980. Pimentel, a senator from this war-torn island of Mindanao, said that the terrorists1 training as well as familiarity with the terrain in Mindanao, has made it very difficult for Philippine government troops to put an end to the Abu Sayyaf rampage. Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, coming into grips with reality and putting pride aside, has turned to the United States for assistance resulting to the deployment of 650 U.S. troops, a part of which are from the Special Forces, otherwise known as the Green Berets. She earlier saber-rattled last year the fighting words "I will pulverize you, you are just one bullet, I will decimate you" in which the Abu Sayyaf responded in July 4 by beheading hostaged American missionary Guillermo Sobero. Pimentel's disclosure is bolstered by the book of John K. Cooley titled "Unholy Wars". Cooley, in this book claimed "thousands of Muslim fighters from many parts of the world, including many young men from the Muslim-dominated but impoverished areas in Mindanao, enlisted to fight in Afghanistan with pay incentives ranging from $100 to $300 a month."
"The training of the moujahideens for guerilla warfare was undertaken by the CIA with the active collaboration of secret, usually, intelligence, services of the armed forces or select military officers in various countries, including our own," Cooley said. "When the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, the Moujahideens either returned to their home countries or proceeded to other countries and put their Afghan war military experience at the service of certain fundamentalist causes of Islam", the book revealed.
"This group (of Filipino Muslim Moujahideens) was the core of an armed guerilla band of several hundred men who moved from its Peshawar, Pakistan base to the southern Philippine Islands after the end of the Afghan war. Under the name of the Abu Sayyaf group, it operated on the fringe of the Moros Muslim insurgency," the Cxooley's book added.
The Abu Sayyaf took its name from Professor Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan intellectual, who had preached an ultra-conservative Islamic ideology called Wahabi. Acoording to Pimentel, in the case of the Filipino Muslim moujahideens, most came back to various parts of Mindanao from their base in Peshawar, Pakistan. Cooley calls the Abu Sayyaf in the 1990s as "the most violent and radical Islamist group in the Far East, using its CIA and ISI (Pakistan1s intra-military directorate for intelligence services) training to harass, attack and murder Christian priests, wealthy non-Muslim plantation-owners and merchants and local government in the southern Philippine island of Mindanao......"
This is quite correct - but there is a little more to the story. The Wahabi are Saudi, in fact, were responsible for the accession to power of King Saud in the early part of the last century. It really does come back to them, like it or not. They still control the madrasas just as they did 100 years ago, and are still using that control to foment political and cultural recidivism.
It is doubly ironic that the imperial power the Wahabi used to rail at, Great Britain, was responsible in large part for their current position. We have taken the place of Britain in Wahabi demonology as the representatives of a culture that most threatens the control of the religious conservatives. We are a necessary external enemy, and nothing more.
I don't know where you would get the idea that I wouldn't like it. Gee, I'd love it if we could pin it on the Saudis--and all the other fanatical mullahs, abdullahs and inmams. Perfect bad guys, if you ask me--straight out of central casting. But somebody, somewhere doesn't see it that way do they?
It's statements like this:
"...We are a necessary external enemy, and nothing more..."
---that make me think you are not being quite serious. I don't wish to sound rude, but wasn't it OUR Leader who got the wheels turning on The Axis of Evil? And axis, which rather pointedly does not include the Saudis. Is that all we really are--an external enemy, nothing more? Is that why we fought a gargantuan land engagement against Iraq a few years ago and continue to sanction and harrass that regime? Is that why we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia?
There's something wrong with the picture. Technical difficulties, perhaps....
As far as the CIA being responsible for arming and training the mujahadeen, that is hardly new news. Our foreign policy has been a disaster at least since the war against Spain. One consistent thing is that we either back the wrong people, or back the right people the wrong way. Considering the American propensity for siding with the Moslems, our continued support of Israel is a mystery to me.
I actually was serious about the "external enemy" comment, and in this context - the Wahabi have found such to be useful after the classic manner of propaganda, beginning with the Ottoman Turks prior to 1917, when the latter were the official government and had been for four centuries. Since the British were in part responsible for the accession of their clients the clan of Saud, after 1917, the Brits were never (despite the Balfour declaration identifying Palestine with the Jews) a proper focus for extranational hostility. In 1948 that changed more toward the direction of the U.S., of course, but at that point there were as yet no potentially embarrassing questions to be answered by a non-Saud majority population.
That's no longer the case. After a half-century of very high-profile gathering of oil wealth the ruling elite is faced with explaining (1) why that wealth has not served to alleviate Palestinian poverty, (2) why there are still "refugees," that is, why the Saudi government has not allowed Palestinian immigration, (3) why the guarantee of employment to all Saudi citizens now has a waiting list several years long, (4) why the per capita income of the Saudi people has fallen disproportionate to the levelling-off of oil prices. In short, why their rule has not worked out better for the ruled.
In addition, the U.S. represents the focus of a cultural threat: secular, individualistic, with universal adult suffrage and vigorous growth in technology, especially communications technology. It is that last that the Wahabi once employed to their advantage; it is the cornerstone of their power, and it is as much the existence of the U.S. as any of the U.S.'s actions that constitutes a threat to that. Because of the above questions I suggest that the Saudis will eventually be vulnerable to a popular revolution of some sort, with Wahabi support that popular revolution will not be religious in origin, and must look externally for secular inspiration - that's us. Certainly the actions of the Saudis in regards to support of the Wahabi educational system, the madrasa, suggest that they feel that way. All IMHO and subject to debate, of course...
Oh yes--something about the Jews. I admit the Jews do not loom large in my schemes, dreams and conspiracy theories --either as heros or villians. I find myself a little more transfixed by the behavior of the people who, in another era of American history might have been called "protestants" or "wasps" or just plain "christians".
I think of a President in his socks insisting that Islam means peace--looking shorter than one would expect and uncomfortable in his suit. I noticed that about Clinton too. He always looked as though he was a mechanical man wearing a suit for the first time. Remember how bloated he looked and how stiffly he held his arms, when he stood between the two Holy Land contestants as they shook hands? Baby-boomer Presidents don't look comfortable in their bodies for some reason.
I think of pictures we've all seen of toothy Jimmy Carter standing between his Holy Land contemporaries as they shook hands. While he was negotiating peace in the Middle East round the clock Paul Volker raised the interests rate which started that dreadful cleansing of the last of the family farmers in America. They say as many as 40,000 men died earlier than expected from heart attacks, gun shot wounds, strokes, depression, a few from self-starvation and broken hearts. Families were destroyed. I read a book which did a fair job of tracing the birth of some of the modern so-called "far right" extremist movements in flyover country to that forgotten step in the march of progress.
In the county where I live there are huge, beautiful federal-style houses literally crumbling. Trailer parks are popping up because all the manly "muscle jobs"--that used to be called "good" jobs, are just disappearing and white working people can't afford the kind of housing their parents took for granted.
Americans are proud of their freedom and the fact that although they pay 50% in taxes they are not socialistic--as demonstrated by the fact that none of the trailer-park people have private health insurance. We seem to take a perverse sort of pride also in the fact that although we've "invested" trillions of dollars in the largest defense entity ever conceived by the mind of man--14 times bigger than the rest of the word combined I think I read--- it cannot protect us from from enemy attack; it will not secure the geographic border; but it can protect Al Quaeda operatives in Bosnia and Kosovo from Serbs; and Saudi Arabians from Iraquis; and Afghan women from Afghan men.
It may irritate me that once-and-future Prime Minister Netanyahu can be treated by our Congress like pre-pubescent hispanic girls used to treat Menudo. At least Netanyahu knows who he represents and is fighting for that constituency all the time. I compare that with our Senators, for example, who sat like bashful schoolboys as Mr. Tenet wagged his finger in their faces and cautioned them against thinking impure thoughts about the performance of the CIA leading up to September 11th. President Bush said he had the highest confindence in Tenet and said America should do the same.
I guess that's why he sent Tenet to the Holy Land to consult with the people there...