You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

Huffington Post ^ | 6/5/2017 | Alastair Crooke

[fuzzylogic]

That’s my take too. I don’t NEED to understand people that are mass murderers, they just need to be killed.

Besides, I can see how Mohammed behaved. That’s about all I need to know.

[SeeSharp]

I believe the Ba’athist and the Communists and the Pan Arabists would all have been trivial phenomena if the West had continued to deny the umma the resources for Jihad.

Maybe. But all those elements were in league with the Soviets and were a potential threat to the middle eastern oil supplies.

We tend to forget now just how big a threat the Soviets were. The American alliance with Saudi Arabia is what kept the world price of oil below the Soviet cost of production so they couldn't earn any hard currency from the sale of oil. Just like the US alliance with South Africa kept the world prices of gold and diamonds below the Soviet cost of production. The Soviet Union imploded because their economy collapsed and it was measures like this that made it happen. So yes, our support for the Saudi's has had some very negative consequences, but it has still been worth it.

It is fair now to ask why we continue to support the Saudi's. Sure, they are our allies against Iran, but Iran is not the Soviet Union. And Iran has made attempts to soften their relationship with us.

[SeeSharp]

We should never have allowed the Arabian nationalization of the oilcos in Arabia.

We were facing an aggressively expanding Soviet Union that was preaching anti-colonialism and getting great political mileage out if it. We are supposed to be the successors of the American Revolution. What else could we have done?

[Paladin2]

What if there is no more Medina/Mecca?

[Paladin2]

Absolutely ClearLogic...

[TXnMA]

"Maybe we should nuke it and end all this nonsense."

Still waiting...

[daniel1212]

Well worth the read even if it is on Huffington.

Should be read by conservatives. But i had a hard time believing i actually reading this on Huffpo. I thought i was reading the Atlantic.

[daniel1212]

To: arthurus I believe the Ba’athist and the Communists and the Pan Arabists would all have been trivial phenomena if the West had continued to deny the umma the resources for Jihad. Maybe. But all those elements were in league with the Soviets and were a potential threat to the middle eastern oil supplies. We tend to forget now just how big a threat the Soviets were. The American alliance with Saudi Arabia is what kept the world price of oil below the Soviet cost of production so they couldn't earn any hard currency from the sale of oil. Just like the US alliance with South Africa kept the world prices of gold and diamonds below the Soviet cost of production. The Soviet Union imploded because their economy collapsed and it was measures like this that made it happen. So yes, our support for the Saudi's has had some very negative consequences, but it has still been worth it. It is fair now to ask why we continue to support the Saudi's. Sure, they are our allies against Iran, but Iran is not the Soviet Union. And Iran has made attempts to soften their relationship with us. 22 posted on 6/6/2017, 5:46:13 PM by SeeSharp

I hit the like icon. Foreign policy always flows from history which the informed should not be ignorant of, as the overall college crowd seems to be.

[HLPhat]

>>What else could we have done?

Listened to Eisenhower?

Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech
Origins and Significance

US National Archives

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y

[HLPhat]

 You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of...

 

 "Islam did not rise except through Ali's sword and Khadijah's wealth," 

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=s6sYxzbiP-gC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=Mecca+Convents&source=bl&ots=MCUIDvA-gA&sig=XlSQr3hdngfxi9PwL9nE4V81lQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg2JuMrpTPAhUQ8GMKHZPOCS4Q6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=Mecca%20Convents&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=Wl0PAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=Khadija+convents&source=bl&ots=S4CgWdu0oz&sig=WqLh2T2uHn7D30FqixqizsIb-wg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4pZHysZTPAhXJeSYKHVVoBiMQ6AEIQDAH#v=onepage&q=Khadija%20convents&f=false

Hmm.

[KC Burke]

Two recent distinctions I have picked up are that the Wahhabist Ikhwan went into revolt or armed action in the 20s to force the Bedouin tribal groups into villages and cities where they could be forced to adhere to Sharia law rather than live the slap-dash manner of herders. Bedouin were hardly observant.

Secondly, the Ikhwan when beat down by the Al Saud family was largely absorbed into the nation’s militia or national guard.

I had already understood that the Wahhabi sect had arisen hand-in-glove with the House of Saud from readings after 9/11. They were the religous/secular rule sides to the same power centralization.