Saudi Barbaria

Tags

9/11, Al Qaeda, barbarism, colonialism, Crown Prince Sultan, human rights, Ibn Sa’ud, iran, ISIS, Islamic extremism, oil, paul william roberts, Persia, Saudi Arabia, Saudi religion, Taliban, threat to Canada, Wahhab, Wahhabism, Women's Rights

When Saudi Arabia threatens Canada for demanding the release of women’s rights activists there, my first reaction is to laugh, because I’ve always thought the place wallowed proudly in its panoramic abuse of human rights in general. Let’s take a look at this puffed-up, backward stretch of oil-rich sand, more a family business than any kind of state.

 

Cobbled together by Ibn Sa’ud, patriarch and owner of many goats, in the 18^th century, it was a fractious confederation of semi-nomadic tribes, from each of which he took a bride, until British colonial plunderers gave it the nod as a “kingdom” – meaning it might have some utility as an “ally”, should the need for one arise. Then along came a man named Wahhab, according to his own parents deranged, who saw himself as, not a second coming of the Prophet Mohammed but a far greater being, one destined to be Caliph of the entire Islamic world. His version of Islam, essentially a heresy, resembled a penal code of unbendable rules, many of which ostensibly outlawed pleasure, music, dancing, and so on. Ibn Sa’ud saw great virtue in an alliance with Wahhab and the sponsorship of his “faith” chiefly because it solved his most frustrating problem. What the old sand-pirate craved to do most was raid the rich caravans coming from Persia, but Islamic law forbade a Muslim from attacking and robbing other Muslims. Wahhabism, however, maintained that other forms of the religion – Shia, Sufi, Aluwite, Ismaili, etc. – were not Islam, were in fact infidels who should be attacked and robbed. The Persians were of course Shia. This was music to Ibn Sa’ud’s ears’ and so a deal was struck which essentially divided the kingdom equally between princes of his house and Wahhabite priests. The caravans from Persia were now legitimate prey, and hostility between the two places remains bitter to this day. The Kingdom likes you to think its national religion is orthodox Sunni Islam, yet it is not. Proof of this came early too. When the Saudis annexed the holy city of Mecca, traditionally held by Hashemite Sunnis, there was inordinate bloodshed. But the biggest problem arose during the first Haj pilgrimage, when Egyptian Sunni pilgrims marched towards the city singing their traditional Haj songs. What to do? Remember, singing is banned in Wahhabism. After some debate, the Saudi troops slaughtered all the Egyptians, men, women and children, which adroitly fixed that dilemma. The Brits, who regarded the Middle East as their bailiwick, didn’t care what Arabs did to other Arabs – or didn’t care until there was a reason to care.

 

This came with oil, which it was agreed would be co-owned by Brits and Saudis. Under numerous distracting corporations, to avoid accusations of monopoly, this arrangement still continues, orient and occident, with America now more of the occident. By the seventies, everyone knew the Saudis were fabulously wealthy, because princes from the hereditary family business were throwing their money around in all the casinos and whorehouses of Europe. But what of the equally hereditary priesthood, who could hardly be seen at gaming tables or in brothels? What did they do with their share of the loot? Well, sad to say, they invested in spreading their despicable heresy around the globe with free schools and mosques (hard for a poor nation to refuse) that all espoused the hateful creed, that still vehemently denounces other forms of Islam (except the Sunni form, of course), whose adherents are recommended for execution, or indeed whatever enormity you fancy visiting on them.

 

I will state unambiguously that Wahhabism, the Saudi state religion, is entirely responsible for all so-called Islamic extremism, from Al Qaeda to ISIS and beyond. The notion of founding a “caliphate”, a major preoccupation of these factions, is precisely the same megalomaniacal fantasy that Wahhab himself dreamt up. Osama bun Laden, the 9/11 bombers, the Taliban, and every other murderous maniac crawling around the planet’s less fortunate areas – all Wahhabis or funded by Wahhabi money. Fact.

 

And these are the people – inspired by their new and obnoxiously self-important Crown Prince – who now threaten us? Saudi Arabia is the only place I have ever been that I thoroughly detested, whose menfolk – for the womenfolk are all imprisoned – I found uniquely uncivilized, whose culture I found non-existent, and whose social mores I found completely barbaric. Homosexuality is punished by beheading. Freedom of speech is unheard of, and if it peeps a teeny bit gets a minimum of a thousand lashes. A joint of pot is worth 20 years in jail or worse – and in Saudi Barbaria twenty years is at least twenty years. It goes on and, as I said, I thought they were pleased and proud of this medieval intolerance. Now I find that posturing buffoon at the helm is touchy about being advised to catch up with international laws… well, I’m inclined to say, ‘Let’s invade and free the women, along with everyone who is not a prince or priest.” Those parasites can be set to work building a submarine zoo for themselves.

 

robertspaulwilliam@gmail.com

US-IS? Does the Most Un-Islamic State Have a Future?

Tags

ISIS, Islam, Middle East, religion

 

Many blog-readers have asked me this. How to respond? The easiest and most honest answer would be to say, Who knows? Because no one can tell. The question does, however, raise some interesting issues. For example, how curious is it to find yourself thinking of Al-Quaeda as ‘moderate’? For, in the face of Desh, Taliban, and other enormities, such is evidently the case. It leads one to think of who controls these organizations. And, on the anniversary of the US attack on the Medecins Sans Frontiers hospital at Kundun, Afghanistan, a year go today – in which many innocent patients and staff were slaughtered – it reminds you of the valid grievances shared by some members of some anti-western groups. Al-Quaeda, since the assassination of Osama bin-Laden, has been headed up by Dr. Aiwan Zawahiri, a spectacularly uncharismatic leader, also very adept at hiding himself from US assaults. A surgeon by profession, he presumably has, or so one would imagine, the kind of educated mind able to look through ideological blather and perceive the political realities of his organization’s current and future situation. This may well account for Al-Quaeda’s recent low profile.

The current situation vis a vis West Asia, from Iran and the Gulf to Syria, is about as uncertain and turbulent as that troubled stretch of the world has ever been. The catastrophe in Iraq, and now the chronic vacillation regarding Syria, have made it clear to those two-thirds of the planet never enthusiastic about western hegemony that the United States is a waning power. Where once a phone calls from any Secretary-of-State would have made rebels and dictators alike jump, now there is only a scornful silence, as everyone proceeds with their  bloody work of imposing someone’s brutal will upon others. Within this fiasco are, somewhere or other, the many voices supposedly representing an ‘Islamic State’. But who exactly do they claim to represent? It certainly isn’t most of the planet’s billion-odd Muslims.

The African factions, like al-Shebab – and which proliferate faster than one can recall their grandiose names – scarcely represent any form of Islam at all. They comprise mostly recent Muslim converts whose allegiances are principally tribal. Conflicts in Africa are invariably hostilities between tribes dating back into the mists of time, and only nominally religious wars. Groups sympathetic to an ‘Islamic State’ south of Syria are extremist Palestinian factions financed by the Wahhabite clergy of Saudi Arabia – just as Bashar Assad’s Shiite regime is backed by hardline Iranian clerics. The Syrian rebels seek a Sunni government at Damascus – some indeed probably a secular one. The forces of Desh – in a three-way civil war (something the US is prone to get involved in, despite military advice to the contrary) – are in reality led by officers of the old Iraqi Republican Guard. They may have grown beards and become adept at spouting nonsense bowdlerized from the Koran, but their sole interests are carving out a territory for themselves from parts of Syria and Iraq. One can hardly blame them. A vast majority of the Sunni and Christian Iraqis with whom I am still in sporadic contact say the same thing: no matter how bad things were under Saddam, there was peace, stability and prosperity. Now there is just conflict, chaos and poverty. It ought to have been very clear to the brain-trust in Washington that overturning Saddam’s Ba’athist rule would leave the oppressed Shia majority in power, and everyone else running for their lives. It is another measure of America’s waning power than no one appears to have advised against the war. Long-used to being in power, Iraqi Sunnis, and some of their Christian subordinates, would have not only felt mistreated, but would also have also possessed the know-how, and some of the means, to fight back – to carve out part of Arabia for themselves. At the end of the day, it is the post-1919 dividing-up of West Asia by western powers which decided on the artificial frontiers seen on any map today. The inhabitants of these vast areas – much of them desert – have never viewed the boundary-lines as legitimate. As a glance at the atlas will show, they are all straight lines – a sure sign of the mapmaker’s work. A sign too of the viability a theorised ‘Islamic State’ presents to many living in the proposed area for such a state.

Israel sits unhappily at the centre of this maelstrom, unable or unwilling to voice her many valid complaints and suggestions. To Jerusalem, the only feasible solution to Syria’s dilemma is the continuation of Assad’s regime. It may not be just or likeable, but it will still be easier to deal with than any kind of Sunni democracy, let alone – God forbid! – any kind of Islamic state. A situation in which no one is happy certainly seems like no solution at all.

But should such a bastion of pseudo-Islamist ideals manage to cut itself a portion of West Asia, what prospects would it have for a thriving future? Precious few, I would say. Israel’s potent military would be ever-watchful. Iran would arm and finance Shia rebels. The Saudis would meddle. And the African factions would demand help with their endless inter-tribal belligerence. On top of all this, the Internet and social media would force the Future into these time-trapped regions and, just perhaps, their denizens would then ask themselves and their leaders what all the horror, hostility and bloodshed were about, Perhaps?

 

P.S. Whoops! I have just learned that the US have blmed Russian interference for all the problems in Syria. Now doesn’t that just go to show you that an old unresolved squabble is better than

 

Paul William Roberts

The End of Iraq

Tags

arab history, cia, foreign policy, george w bush, Iraq, ISIS, washington

 

In my book, A War Against Truth, mercilessly persecuted by the scum running America, I outline in great detail the nefarious deeds and self-serving decisions that led up to George W. Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, and its calamitous consequences, all of them obvious to any clod-brained half-wit in the State Department, or even in the CIA – where intelligence may be the middle-name, but is rarely the modus operandi. I added an epigraphic chapter to the paperback version of that book, following these consequences a further few years on, when the chaos was becoming entrenched, a way of life for the victims of a deplorable and poisonous foreign policy, one that is the sole cause of most man-made misery on earth – and has been for over half a century. In Iraq, back in 2003, I did have hopes that the situation would resolve itself – not high hopes, but still hopes. Arabs are a resilient people, accustomed to being cheated and abused by the West, yet always enduring with pride.

Now we have the murderous attacks in Baghdad and elsewhere, blamed on US, the Unislamic State, a useful acronym since the rise of these bloodthirsty, pseudo-Islamic psychopaths can be blamed on the US of A, and Washington’s fuck-witted, addle-pated, thoughtless, febrile plot to overthrow Saddam and replace him with… what? This lame-brained non-idea was hatched by wealthy Shia emigres, who viewed themselves as the rightful heirs, the inheritors of Iraq, yet changed their minds when they saw the vicious mayhem erupting after Ba’athism fell – a mayhem easily predictable, had anyone thought it through, or even thought at all.  The oppressed Shia Muslim Iraqis had been trodden under jackboots of a powerful Sunni Muslim minority for well over a generation, and were bound to seek a gory revenge when Sunni chips were down. But who was to blame for the Ba’athist tyranny? Well, that would be the greedy French and British colonizers who carved up West Asia in the wake of World War One, conveniently forgetting that Feisal and his Hashemites had been promised their own Arabia as the reward for helping defeat Ottoman Turks, under the supervision of T.E. Lawrence – who probably committed suicide out of shame for a promise reneged on. That promise still exists on paper in a letter filed at the British Arab Office. The wantonly disastrous Euro-Mid-East policy was bequeathed to oil-fevered Americans, who populated Arab governments with their own dictatorial military brutes, propped up by aid in the billions and an army to watch their vulnerable puppet-backs.

So the trail of blame ends right in the Oval Office, or really in the Pentagon and out at Langley. The purpose of this blunder through a history of which scarcely an American is aware may well now elude everyone in those festering rat-holes. Or this chaos may be that elusive purpose. Every time I concede that these Neanderthal oafs are clever, however, they do something egregiously stupid to change my mind.

Is there a solution to West Asia’s serial nightmare? Yes, and it’s the same solution we would want for ourselves if the diabolism were in our back yard. Communicate with the Unislamic State, and tell them to leave the world alone and, if they do, they’ll be left with their own problems. Assuming they agree to this – by no means certain with slobbering maniacs –then leave those turbulent nations to work out their own catastrophes. If war and slaughter is their choice, stand back and let them bring it on. The fittest always survive, right? So when the dust settles and the blood drains from the alleys, what will remain must be the fittest society to which they can aspire. If it not, they’ll change that one too, and keep on until they get it right – or until everyone’s dead. But, whatever happens, we won’t be involved, our money will not be squandered, and our people won’t needlessly die.

Should the sociopaths and drooling killers professing to be an Unislamic State – their leaders mainly now-full-bearded ex-Republican Guardsmen from the old Sunni Iraq, if the truth be told – should they decline this generous offer, then, of course, off with their heads, hang ‘em high. But, all the same, it does seem mysterious that a military alliance once capable of defeating and trashing the mighty Nazi war machine, along with its homeland, cannot handle a few hundred lightly-armed lunatics, does it not? It makes you wonder if the plan – assuming these dolts still have plans – is not to destroy Iraq entirely and lease the remnants out to whoever wants or needs them, remembering, naturally, that the big oil kleptocracies already have contracts for the bits they want.

 

Paul William Roberts

 

The Arab Street

Tags

egypt, egyptian word on the street, ISIS, Middle East, politics, syria

First let us clear up one irritant: the name by which these terrorists ought to be known. They are not a ‘state’, by any stretch of the term, for their talent lies in destroying people and things; they could not build up, less still run, an atoll in the South Pacific, even if they had one. I shall henceforth refer to them as PC, an abbreviation of ‘Psychopathic Criminals’, which more accurately defines them, and, by inference, the treatment they merit. The term Daesh, currently favoured by French and other media – which, for some reason, is imagined to contain an insulting double entendre,if omly because gaesh can mean ‘small donkey’ – has been commonly used for them by Egyptians since they first crawled from their holes, and essentially refers to a swathe of land incorporating Iraq and Syria – both, very long ago, once seats of the Caliphate, much as Wessex was once the ruling kingdom of England, or Rome the world’s capital. According to someone on CBC radio, the wisely reclusive PC leader, al-Baghdadi – who failed acceptance by a university to study Economics, admitted by a lesser institution for Islamic Studies – had, among his favourite tomes, Paul Kennedy’s masterly Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a self-explanatory study from 1500 to 2000. Conceivably, Baghdadi imagined the book would teach him how to make great powers fall; but more likely he ceased his perusal after discovering that economic history entailed a fair bit of economics, with many statistical charts similar to those nixing his ambitions as an economist. If he actually read the book, one wonders which tyrannical butcher he most identified with. Even the bone-headed bully, Mussolini, and his Abyssinian catastrophe, is a dictatorial Titan compared with the PC Fuhrer – sorry, wannabe Caliph. Kennedy’s opus demonstrates that economic factors – like production or manufacturing – bring down nations. Gun and bomb-toting fanatics, backed by mentally ill death-wishers, achieve little more than their own demise. Bakunin – ubi est? Surely the PC Mastermind must have asked himself what economic factors he and his demented crew even possessed? Perhaps the Balkans gave him hope? After all, two-thirds of PC’s armed rabble in Syria are from Chechnya, and elsewhere in Russian Central Asia, a crew weaned on war, and with a hatred of Russia far exceeding their determination to terminate Assad. To Baghdadi, economic prosperity involves whatever can be stolen, and how much Saudi Wahhabite clerics hand over for the cause – which is, let’s be clear, an attempt by allegedly Sunni Muslims to rid Arabia of the Shia, declared by Wahhab himself to be non-Muslims. Assad is a Shia sectarian, which is why Iran, sole Shia theocracy, supports him. Czar Putin’s backing, obviously not theological, concerns the build-up of battle-hardened Balkan militants on his doorstep (a map will show you how surprisingly near Syria is to recalcitrant remnants of the Russian empire).

I want now to share with you what my Egyptian sources tell me of the varied rumours, theories, and sound convictions found today on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere along the Nile. I do not necessarily endorse these views, nor necessarily dismiss them. It just strikes me as important to hear widely-held beliefs not broadcast by NBC, CNN, or Fox Ne…well, it’s Opinion, isn’t it, not news. I could name my sources, but they will be happier if I do not. I shall list the street-speak in no particular order.

1. The Muslim Brotherhood was paid $ 8 billion by the US to hand government back to a Washington-controlled military dictatorship.
2. Slaughter of Christians across the region is hardly ever mentioned by western media.
3. A plan exists to turn the Sinai into a Palestinian state.
4. CIA blew up that Russian plane over the Sinai to assist the above plan by destroying foreign tourism to Sharm el-Sheikh, the most popular Egyptian resort for Europeans, and, until now, considered safe from terrorism.
5. US Intelligence is failing badly in distinguishing combatants in the region, seemingly unaware of the vital role tribal leaders could play if approached respectfully.
6. Saudi oil and thus cash will run out within five years, resulting in a Wahhabite coup and theocratic state, armed to the teeth with top-notch US weaponry and likely to wage a war on Iraq, ousting the Shia-dominated government and seizing the vast southern oilfields. This will ignite a war with Iran over disputed territory in the Hormuz Straits, and possibly PC-Wahhabite attacks on the Emirates, which have plenty of oil yet few military defenses.
7. An Israeli-Saudi accord – existing for years now – could divide Syria between Israel and the new Arabia.
8. Egypt will secure territories the US wants secure, and it does possess nuclear weapons – as does Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia.
9. Russia will support Iran in this conflict, supplying nukes if the need arises.
10. Wahhabite clerics will dispose of PC elements easily, allying with Iraqi ex-Republican guard fighters, who have backed PC for tactical reasons but hate their fanaticism. They will argue that a Caliphate ought to be run from Mecca, and not interfere in social or political concerns. The Saudi clerics may regard this as equitable, but only if they have rid themselves of their own and the Yemeni Shia they’ve recently bombed with impunity.
11. The map of West Asia will be redrawn, and the new powers may next fight over Africa, or else agree to divide it between themselves.
12. Wahhabism has been spread through free schools across the undeveloped world, providing a potential army to fight for the heresy if called upon to do so.
13. If war erupts, Iran will block the Straits, cutting off oil supplies to much of the world. If oil is suddenly priced in a non-US dollar currency, the American economy will collapse as dollar values fall, leaving Washington no alternative but war on a massive scale, and one also facing the old foe, Russia.
14. Those on the spot claim that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey was in fact downed by unmarked US fighter planes, to create strife between Ankara and Moscow, because Turkey is the main conduit for Saudi funds to the PC, and Russian ambitions in Syria are suspect.
15. Egypt’s only dollar-earning business is tourism, which has collapsed due to continuing unrest, leaving unemployment at inordinate levels, further weakening resistance to the army dictators, in order to return the place to the relative tranquility of Mubarak’s reign, when Israel was free from fear of Egyptian and/or Syrian attacks.
16. The diluted new Intifada will make the Sinai seem increasingly attractive as a Palestinian state, especially when Israeli forces crack down harder, since no one is left in a position to object, and Egypt will be as responsible for peace-keeping there as Jerusalem will be at the old Gaza border.

 

As said, I make no comments, beyond this being grim stuff. I will say, however, as I have before, that Iraqi and Syrian Christians are by far the safest bet as refugees – indeed, any Christians in the region ought to be offered asylum if they seek it. They recognize one another very easily, and would identify a PC imposter at 100 paces. They are also not terrorists, and have been abused in the lands they first inhabited – and where the world’s oldest churches are being demolished by PC imbeciles, a fact rarely heard on western media, which seem to regard innocent Muslims as more innocent and deserving than innocent Christians. Over ten years ago I said Iraq Christians needed help badly, and would be sponsored here privately by a large Eastern Orthodox community. No one cared or listened then; I hope they do now, particularly since Christian refugees would make processing so much simpler. Educated, middle-class, they would blend into Canada like snow. Americans are disastrously sick of politicians, arriving at Donald Trump the way a starving mass would fall on MacDonald’s’ dump. I hope the reliance on bureaucrats and professional paper-jockeys doesn’t have the same effect here. If US Intelligence is bad – because intelligent people don’t want to get involved with such bungled duplicity – I hate to think what Canada’s is like. The country is full of knowledgeable people, who don’t want to be ensnared by government, but do not mind answering questions occasionally. A vote does not signify intelligence, but there are other things that do. Use them, for God’s sake, before the Mess gets messier.

 

Sincerely with love,

 

Paul William Roberts

Canada, ISIS and Refugees

Tags

Canada, France, ISIS, Middle East, politics, refugees

 

                ^{Like the US attack on Afghanistan after September 11th, 2001, the French bombing} of a Syrian city was rash, emotional, and unplanned, resulting in possibly hundreds of innocent civilian deaths. It is worrying to find a government reacting like any other thug on the street, except for the military at its command to be ‘merciless’ – a declaration no civilized leadership ought to voice. As outlined in my previous blog-post, there is only one way to eliminate ISIS, and it involves accurate intelligence, and then the active presence of a tri-lateral army, particularly that of Special Forces, trained and able to differentiate civilians from the enemy.

Prime Minister Trudeau’s vow to disengage Canadian warplanes from the conflict is laudable, yet his promise to assist in other ways – like training of Syrian and  Iraqi troops – is flawed, and will still result in this country being viewed as a combatant. My previous blog explains why this West Asian catastrophe should be left to those nations responsible for it. The money saved will help us in the truly Canadian task of assisting refugees fleeing this nightmare.

Of course we must take great care in whom we admit, and I wonder how many are suited to the task of separating potential terrorists from genuinely displaced people. If lie-detectors are used – more as a deterrent than for their questionable accuracy – how many inquisitors will know the right questions to ask? A detailed knowledge of the Koran will be required, as well as of the apocryphal texts, and the versions utilized by Wahhabite clergy, and the websites on which these perversions of Islam appear. A familiarity with Arab tribal affiliations is also vital. Indeed, every Arabist in the country ought to be consulted, asked to suggest the questions posed to aspirants for asylum here. But the less involvement we have in the military struggle, the fewer terrorists will regard Canada as a deserving target. A glance at non-involved nations will alone drive this point home. ISIS is at war with countries viewed, historically and currently,  as enemies of, exclusively, Sunni Islam – or their distorted Wahhabite concept of it. To ignore this is to remain ignorant of what is really happening, both there and in the West.

 

Sincerely, with love,

 

Paul William Roberts