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

Advertisements

Saudi Arabia on Trial

Tags

Saudi Arabia

 

A bill passed by the US Congress promises this. It was vetoed by President Obama – who cited concerns that it would allow the world to sue America for war crimes – but many Democrats and most Republicans waived such valid concerns aside. I should admit that I am all for suing Saudi Arabia, particularly the Wahhabite clergy, whose vast wealth finances much terrorism, and all of the Third World’s free Islamist schools, which teach the obnoxious Wahhabibite heresy, along with its hateful attitudes towards Shia Muslims, Sufis, and the numerous other orthodox Muslim sects. The proposed law-suit concerns 9/11, of course – why would Americans concern themselves with matters that don’t concern them? But, attempting to skirt the many conspiracy theories, there are indeed many vexing questions about that fateful day. For example, why was the only aircraft permitted to fly a Saudi jetliner taking royals back home? For that matter, who gave the order for US fighters to stand down, when standard procedure during a hijacking is for airforce jets to scramble? On a more mundane level: what happened to the security-camera footage that would have captured the airplane which hit the Pentagon? If it was an airplane. At least one on-site observer claims it was a US-army missile. Just show the footage, and then – no problem. The conspiracy-minded claim that 9/11 was a plot, a disaster designed to change the course of history and, particularly, US law-enforcement. Well, there is no doubt that US law-enforcement dramatically changed course after September 11^th, 2001, erasing many of the constitutional provisions for basic citizens’ rights. Although the lack of citizen-protest may suggest that those who don’t value rights ought not to have them. The disaster may have been an opening for opportunists – as some say the Reichstag fire was for Hitler’s Nazis, encouraging more severe racial laws – or it may have been diabolically planned. This latter is hard to believe, not for want of diabolism in the parties necessarily involved, but for the rampant stupidity such parties habitually display. Unless limited to one or two people, a conspiracy is impossible to keep secret. Even things about 9/11 that have a logical explanation are still cloaked in a ridiculous miasma of so-called security. For instance, any viewer of video showing the towers coming down can see, if the tape is slowed down, explosions blowing out each lower corner. As levels blow out, the upper structures come down. It’s obvious and undeniable. I asked a Manhattan architect about it. The answer was straightforward enough. ‘Any towers built from the late fifties on,’ he said, ‘have plastic explosives built into the corners of each floor. It’s essential. You can’t have these structures falling down in the event of a catastrophe. One would fall onto another, and in no time you’d have a domino-effect where half the city was brought down. The explosives are perfectly safe – they need a detonator to ignite – but their existence is kept secret because people are jumpy. Who wants to live or work in a building wired to explode? But, as you saw, it came in useful.’ That explained, for me, an anomaly preposterously easy to spot. One wonders why network media haven’t pointed it out. Slow the tape, and it’s plain to see – unless you’ve been told not to see it.

But taking the Saudis to court involves other issues. True, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. True too that various Saudi consulates and embassies in the US assisted in some way the hijackers needs for accommodations, materiel, and, yes, flying lessons. But how to find the personnel operating in these diplomatic enclaves at that time? The answer is they won’t be found. A thousand reasons will make this reasonable – apart from the problem of Arabic names written in Arabic.

But, for all the specific evidences of malfeasance, Saudi Arabia is also one vast galloping example of global despicability. For far too long – or for far too much oil – the Kingdom has got a free pass from the West. This would be a West deploring human rights violations and even ‘barbarism’ elsewhere. Well, elsewhere ought to include the spurious Gulf kleptocracy. Where women have no rights whatsoever. Where music is banned. Where political gatherings are banned. Where possession of alcohol is cause for a death, or, if not, a life sentence. Where homosexuals are executed – beheaded by sword. Where you can be sentenced – like a friend of mine – for five years in jail if found guilty of possessing half a joint. And five years there is five years, not a third of that. You’re confined, ridiculed, abused, and then released. You never view the Kingdom in a kindly way again. All the dismal place warrants, to any outsider, is a massive cleaning up.

Bearing in mind the perennial free pass, it will be interesting to observe how current Saudi hierarchs wheedle their way out this latest, and wholly justified, accusatory predicament,

 

Paul William Roberts

 

How to Deal with ISIS

Tags

France, Middle East, politics, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, Wahhabism

       ^{At the so-called Peace Conference held at Paris in 1919, T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) arrived with Sheik Faisal, leader of the Arabs who had acted as vital British allies in the war against Ottoman  Turkey, and were promised, in return, a nation of their own. Lawrence and his friend were kept waiting for several weeks before Faisal was allowed to speak on behalf of his people and the lands they had been promised – which included Palestine [see documents in the British Arab Office archives]. Faisal was allowed only a brief time to speak, since by then the secret Sykes-Picot agreement had already divided up the major Arab territories, like Syria and Iraq, between Britain and France. Faisal left empty-handed, and Lawrence eventually committed suicide out of shame for the deceit he had, unwittingly, played a major part in perpetuating. The harsh treatment of Germany by major powers at that conference led directly to the rise of Hitler, who was persuaded by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, leading Muslim authority in Palestine, not to deport European  Jews there, since it would cause a severe conflict. This led directly to the Holocaust.}

                ^{In 1955, President Eisenhower in Washington was informed at an intelligence briefing that the hostility towards America displayed by the average Arab was a direct consequence of US support for tyrannical dictators in the region who effectively dashed the hopes of the masses for a semblance of democracy. Eisenhower, a decent man [see his last address on the dangers of a Military-industrial complex], was disturbed by this news, yet the CIA assured him the situation in West Asia was just as it should be. The US and UK destroyed Iran’s first democratically-elected government in the fifties, too, replacing it with a puppet Shah, whose mandate was to crush communism in any form, and in any way necessary. His Savak secret police used this excuse to eradicate all varieties of resistance, leading directly to the 1979 Revolution. Always favouring dictatorships, and craving light sweet crude oil – the finest – first the UK, then the US, backed Saudi Arabia – now the worst and most backward tyranny on earth – for its oil. No one knew, or else no one cared, that, traditionally, half the Saudi state’s income – hundreds of billions – went to the princes, while the other half went to an hereditary clergy. These clerics subscribed to what is, essentially, an Islamic heresy concocted by a self-proclaimed prophet in the 18th century named Wahhab, whose primary goals were to please the old King Ibn Saud, and to make himself Caliph of a vast Islamic state. To please the King, whose main desire then was to raid rich Persian caravans – forbidden in Islam, where a Muslim may not fight another Muslim – Wahhab declared the Shia, a sect ruling Iran, to be non-Muslims,, thus their caravans could be raided. Similarly, he banned the Sufis, Ismailis, and everything not orthodox Sunni Islam; also banning music and dancing while he was at it. In effect, he reduced the magnificence of Islam to a prison code. His descendants now rule Saudi religion with an iron hand, executing homosexuals, oppressing women, and so on; also using their share of the oil billions to establish free schools in poor countries, where their hate-filled perversion of Islam is taught, with an emphasis on Jihad as war against all infidels – an easy thing, since the Koran in Arabic is impossible to definitively understand, and all translations are merely interpretations. The Wahhabite clergy finance numerous websites which attempt to radicalize impressionable minds, often by quoting spurious apocryphal prophetic texts predicting a kind of End Time war, which will be fought in Iraq and Syria – although their strategic and tactical advice is designed for 9th century tribal war, not the 21st century variety, no matter that the countries mentioned still exist. It does not take a genius to work out that Saudi clerics, and some royalty, are behind the so-called Jihadist movement, and are funding the fantasised Islamic State, which is really just the resurrection of pseudo-prophet Wahhab’s monomaniacal dream 200 years ago. It is telling that the deranged kid, who shot a guard  and tried to invade Ottawa’s Parliament, told his mother he wished to study Islam in Riyadh, where all he would learn would be the heresy of Wahhab. A serious student would aim to study at al-Ahram in Cairo, the heart of Sunni orthodoxy.  To me, at least, this proves he was radicalized by Wahhabite websites, which need to be  identified, traced, and shut down. The financial affairs of Saudi clerics also need to be examined, and all funds frozen. Their schools in the undeveloped world need to be monitored for inciting hatred and distorting Islam, and then, ideally, replaced by UNESCO with real schools. The Saudi tyranny also needs to be dismantled, liberating women, as well as paving the way for real democratic elections.}

                ^{As the above snippets of history show, the originators of this current chaos in West Asia are the UK, France, and the US. Canada has no responsibility in the matter, which ought to be left to the three nations involved.}

^{Since the fanciful Islamic State, or ISIS, has now, contrary to Koranic teachings, declared war against innocent civilians – some even Muslims – in the West, the only possible response is massive retaliation. Between them, the UK, France, and the US need to put a million boots on the ground, backed up by drones, Stealth Bombers, Cruise  Missiles, and accurate intelligence. Attack, as we know, is the best method of defense. The ISIS leaders – not idiots in the least – need to be identified and, ideally, captured. To drive home the point, after a proper trial, I would not object to these poisonous individuals being publically guillotined in the Place de la Concorde, the video also posted on U=Tube, just to show that a liberal democracy does not mean weakness. If ISIS commanders, as is their wont, hide in public places or World Heritage sites, like Palmyra – which I know well and fear is now gone forever – Special Forces need to go in and take out only the enemy. I have seen the SAS and others in action, and know their extraordinary capabilities at such clean operations. A coalition of those three countries perpetrating this current mayhem, whether in the past or in the present, would symbolize much to the majority of Arabs who yearn only for peace. A million men on the ground would tell ISIS that their game was over.}

^{It will mean scouring Syria, removing Assad – let the Iranians or Russians have him if they’re so fond of him – sorting rebels from ISIS interlopers, and installing a provisional government until such a time as free and fair elections are feasible. Access to the important Shia shrine, the tomb of Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, must be guaranteed for all Shia pilgrims – which is the main reason Iran is backing the sectarian Shia leader, Assad. Should the empire-hungry, and increasingly militant, Czar Putin object, he ought to told to back off, and take a salutary lesson from the military might displayed, realizing no Russian winter could save his country from a similar assault, if was  provoked.}

                ^{In Iraq, the situation would be different. Although the author of ISIS Apocalypse attributes the collaboration of Iraqi tribes to an al-Quaeda innovation, it is in fact a technique Saddam Hussein deployed whenever he sought mass-support, which shows that much of the ISIS insurgency there consists of skilled fighters from the old Sunni Republican Guard, which has a legitimate grievance relating to the current Shia domination over Baghdad’s parliament. Since the uninformed idiocy of US Intelligence services was responsible for creating this unthought-out mess, it behooves America to fashion a new Iraqi government in which Sunni, Shia, and others are are equally represented, and Kurdish loyalty is appropriately rewarded with a sovereign state. In the new Iraq, those all-important oil revenues must be equitably shared by all. If Iraqi Sunnis were convinced of such a bright future they would themselves rid the country of ISIS fanatics, whose whereabouts and strategies they will know well. Tribal leaders, if approached with the respect they warrant – not summoned to US HQ, as they were in 2003 – would also be of invaluable assistance. US Intelligence seems to have no understanding of tribal ways, possibly dating back to their brutal mistreatment of Native Indians after 1776?}

                ^{As for Saudi Arabia, my preference would be for a UK-US invasion of liberation, ousting the royalty, and rounding up those clerics most responsible for fomenting terrorism, and, if found guilty, offered – as Saudi law rarely offers – a choice between execution or a videotaped denunciation of their own distortions of Islam, including the admission that murder and terror are nowhere endorsed in the Koran, nor are killers or suicide-bombers promised rewards in paradise. If necessary, a videotaped debate between orthodox Islamic scholars and Wahhabite clergy should be arranged, to show Muslims worldwide that they have been wantonly misled, and often by the use of spurious texts written long after the Prophet’s death, in direct contradiction to his teachings. Even the Hadith states that Mohammed’s last words were an order for his followers not to schism and to take care of women’s rights. Nowhere does he sanction a priesthood, either, so the injunctions from Imams or Ayatollahs have no validity whatsoever for any devout Muslim. It rests upon the shoulders of Saudi clerics to undo the damage they have done to a faith they profess to uphold. Such a liberation of Saudi Arabia would also need to confiscate all oil revenues to be put in escrow and then be equitably divided up amongst the people by an elected government. Furthermore, the Saudi military should be deprived of all the sophisticated aircraft and weaponry supplied by the US, thus preventing any more attacks on Shia communities in the Yemen and elsewhere, which, to date, have been carried out freely.}

                ^{As opposed as I am to the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine’s eternal conflict, I think a Palestinian state is probably the only answer – but it ought to comprise parts of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria, with access to holy sites, like Hebron or Bethlehem, and Jerusalem, common to three religions, guaranteed under international law as neutral zones, with the proviso that any violence perpetrated by any member of any religion will result in all members of that faith being denied access to the site or shrine for many years. Similarly, any hostility from a new Palestinian state towards Israel would result in severe penalties, including a military purge and international embargoes. Israel must accept the same conditions, and receive funding for helping build infrastructures and agriculture – thus good relations – with the new Palestine. Any peace talks will now stall over the question of Jerusalem; this plan overcomes the problem by making all holy sites neutral, weapons-free areas, supervised by Israelis with oversight by UN peacekeepers. A glance at the map shows clearly those areas of Jordan, Iraq and Syria, largely empty now, that could easily become Palestine without threatening Israeli security.}

                ^{Since the UK and France drew the map – thank you Winston Churchill – and the US solidified its irrational borders, the three nations can just as easily redraw it along more rational lines to serve new needs.}

                ^{Canada, however, cannot be blamed for the Mess, and ought to have no military involvement. It is not hard to observe that most terrorist attacks are against the three imperialist culprits responsible for deceiving the Arabs or imposing military dictators in the region – as is yet again the case in Egypt, whose brief democracy displeased Washington, much as the one in Iran did sixty years ago. Dictators are so much easier to deal with: they do what they’re told, or else they’re replaced. A democracy does not jump so readily when the ringmaster cracks his whip.}

                ^{ISIS has to go. The appalling attacks in Paris alone are an act of war; and wars are won by overwhelming force and grim determination. Land a million troops pledged to erase ISIS from history, and the Arab tribes will  swiftly get the message. They admire enormous strength and ruthless retribution. The Hydra may have been able to grow more heads endlessly, yet ISIS will not be so endowed. The body of its leadership gone – ideally on U-tube – the many-headed networks or foreign cells will wither and die, especially when told they are violating Islamic principles rather than furthering them.}

^{The Caliphate was an early medieval dream, and even then it did not last long – besides having no sanction in the Koran. Those whose imperial hubris caused these problems ought now to correct matters in every way, and then, having done their very best, leave these new nations to shift for themselves peacefully and through their own form of democratic processes. Canada’s ‘allies’ have only ever summoned us to help fight their wars. Americans know nothing about us, except for the igloos; and the English scorn us privately as just another colony renamed. As Pierre Trudeau often said, our real friends are the Scandinavian countries, with which we have most in common, and which stay well away from neo-imperial adventures. Justin Trudeau should take his father’s advice, and let those who broke West Asia mend it. Canadians have no wish to be a super-power, nor do we have the means. An alliance with the neighbourhood bullies only brings you more trouble when you’re caught alone. Besides, we are going to need all that money spent on machines of death to fulfill all those rash election promises for which we voted.}

 

^{Sincerely with love,}

^{Paul William Roberts}

The Ottawa Shooter

Tags

govnerment, Islam, Ottawa, Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism

It astounds me that the comment made by the Ottawa shooter’s mother stating that her son intended studying the Koran in Saudi Arabia has not received more attention. To study the Koran in Saudi Arabia would mean to study the heretical Wahhabite version of Islam, which besides relegating women to chattel status, banning music and denouncing Islamic forms such as the Shia and the Sufis also advocates a violent war in the name of Jihad against all infidels–that would be those who do not subscribe to the Wahhabite heresy. If anyone in Ottawa or elsewhere were attuned to the reality of the situation within Islam, they would be fully conscious that the impetus for this man’s violent deed must have come via a website originating in Saudi Arabia and espousing the heretical and extremist Wahhabite doctrine. Someone seriously wishing to study the Koran would do so in Cairo, the centre, or Vatican of Sunni Islam. As usual, I am amazed by the ineptitude of government advisers on such subjects–if indeed such exist.

My Birthday

Tags

Canada, Islam, journalism, Middle East, politics, Saudi Arabia, stephen harper, syria, war

What better gift could I receive on my birthday than the news that Canada is about to send in ‘advisers’ to assist the Iraqi military in its struggle against the organization whose name varies from ISIS to ISOS, but which we shall call IS, for ‘Islamic State’? Without much elaboration – since I have stated the case so often – I shall keep these comments brief. Firstly, the term ‘advisers’ – which I noticed originally back when the USA was inheriting the Vietnam War from France – actually means highly-trained special forces; the kind of soldiers able to take an entire town or base without assistance. The vagueness of Prime Minister Harper’s description of this advisory unit as “several dozen men” confirms this suspicion, ‘several’ being one of the most meaningless terms in the                                                                                                                                                    language. ‘Advisers’ has always been Pentagon code for Special Forces. I met such people when I was in Iraq in 2003, and they had been there long before the actual invasion itself began, their principal task being to knock out Saddam’s desert bases, thereby immobilizing his most highly-trained forces. So let us dispense with the myth of ‘advisers’. If actual advice were required by Iraq’s military, a couple of men could perform this task; ‘several dozen’ would merely be superfluous, if not confusing. Let us assume that Britain will send in its SAS, and the US its Delta Force. This tells us the problem is troublesome, yet easily contained.

Next arises the issue of why the Canadian public is not consulted about such an action, which will undoubtedly result in Canadian deaths, if not an involvement in another debacle as insolvable and pointless as Afghanistan or Vietnam. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers. Are we really living in a democracy? Does Harper actually comprehend the function of a Parliament? What became of public discussion?

The last issue I can be bothered to raise before my birthday dinner is the one of how to stop IS in its progress, including the execution of men I still deem colleagues. Does no one wonder why these beheaded journalists are all termed ‘independent’? I always reported on war zones as an ‘independent’, but it was only when my reports from Iraq in 2003 were so eagerly received by the Globe and Mail, and the CBC, that I realised why. They had none of their own people on the ground because they could not – or would not – afford the insurance to cover reporters in danger spots. They happily take the reporting of such independents venturing into areas where a story really exists, yet they offer nothing in condolence or compensation to those who have provided the material they would otherwise lack. It seems likely I lost my eyesight from exposure to toxins in Iraq, yet I would no more dream of asking the Globe or CBC for compensation than I would of suing the Pentagon for its war.

As I have stated ad nauseam, the way to stop IS is to locate the channels of funding which, I can guarantee, originate from the Wahhabi priesthood of Saudi Arabia. This is not a crew of crazed vicars handing over the collection plate. This is an hereditary priesthood receiving, by law and tradition, half the Saudi oil wealth. The ethnic cleansing being performed by IS alone demonstrates its close Wahhabi ties. Wahhabism is ostensibly a Muslim heresy which, for self-serving purposes, condemns the Shia and other Muslim sects as non-Islamic. It also regards women as subhuman and views music and dancing as satanic. Unfortunately, however, it also has an annual income in the trillions of dollars, which it has used to spread its malicious heretical version of Islam all over the world since the oil boom of the 1970s. It also funds IS, and all the Al Quaeda spin-off factions. Notice how none of these pseudo-Islamic psychopaths ever bother a Sunni-led regime. Read books about the sect, for Christ’s sake, if you don’t believe me. If you want to see more Canadian soldiers die for nothing, then please don’t bother to inform yourself about any issue at all. If, however, you would prefer Canada to engage solely in just wars, ask your MPs and MPPs to raise the issue of Saudi funding for IS in Parliament. Demand to know why the most backward and barbaric state on earth is tolerated simply for its oil wealth. Also ask why Iraq, not Syria, is the cause behind intervention. Could it possibly be that Syria has no oil? If any country deserves to be invaded it is surely Saudi Arabia. If any faith deserves to be prohibited it is surely Wahhabism. If oil is not the issue – as the liars in high places will doubtless assure us – then leave Iraq to sort out its own problems. Interfering in them will solve nothing in the long run but further antagonizing those few deranged Islamist radicals who still believe the Crusades have yet to end. “Whoops,” as George W. Bush said, “I didn’t mean to say ‘crusade’.”

 

With love, as always, Paul William Roberts

What You Aren’t Told About Islamist Terrorism

Tags

Islam, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, United States of America

There are some conspiracy theorists who claim the sad deaths of Robin Williams and Lauren Bacall were ‘black operations’ designed to distract media attention away from events in Ferguson, Missouri. While obviously this is stultifying nonsense, there are very valid questions to be raised regarding what the media choose to treat as news, and how they choose to treat it.

I, for one, am growing heartily sick of media refusal to provide a context for both the current situation in Iraq, and so-called Islamist terrorism in general. What I am about to say has been said before, and not just by myself, but in numerous                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     far more-learned and densely-foot-noted books. Yet the information has been largely ignored by a media curiously reluctant to provide viewers or listeners with any context for events, which thus seem to exist in a disconnected void, much like a television series where each episode is a complete story, not reliant upon any knowledge of previous episodes.

With Iraq this entails no mention of the American invasion of 2003 – covered first-hand in my book A War Against Truth – which violated international law, and was predicted by many to result in the current factional chaos. As I predicted here some weeks ago, the threat to U.S. oil interests would oblige America to respond with lethal force. The situation will further deteriorate, and I shall not be surprised to see U.S. boots on the ground soon enough – particularly since they are already on the ground in remote desert bases, stationed there purely to protect oil concerns. The reader ought to remember that America has never closed a base – they still exist in Japan, Italy, Germany, and other defeated victims of World War II; as well as in the numerous objectives of American imperialism, from Indo-China to the Philippines, the Caribbean, and Central America. Although such bases are occasionally mentioned in connection with U.S. operations requiring their use – Weisbaden, for example – I have never heard any media pundit question their existence seventy years, in some cases, after the war which justified their initial construction.

This, however, is not my point here – although it does remain a question demanding both to be asked and answered. My point here is going to be stark, unembellished, and profoundly offensive to some – and those ‘some’ are profoundly offensive to me. I am tempted to state the case in point form as an aid to comprehension, and to add emphasis that this is fact, not opinion:

01: Wahhabite Islam is responsible for all Islamist Terrorism. It is the sole form of Islam officially sanctioned by Saudi Arabia.

02: Wahhab, the founder, was an 18^th century Muslim with delusions of grandeur that appealed to Ibn Sa’ud, who was then attempting, through a prodigious campaign of inter-tribal marriages, to make himself ruler of Arabia – then an ill-defined area of nomadic peoples. Wahhab – whose own parents regarded him as insane – saw himself as greater than the Prophet Mohammed, aspiring to be Caliph of a vast Islamic empire. This meshed in nicely with Ibn Sa’ud’s own plans, giving them a religious sanction. Thus, a partnership was formed between priest and prince – not unlike that advocated by ancient Hebrew texts – dividing control of the inchoate Saudi Arabia between an hereditary monarchy and an hereditary priesthood, which exist to this day, splitting the fabulous oil wealth – undreamt of in the 18^th century – between Wahhabite priests and Saudi royalty.

03: Many of Wahhab’s heretical interpretations of Islam were suited to Ibn Sa’ud’s specific needs: for example, Islam forbids Muslims from attacking other Muslims. Ibn Sa’ud badly wanted to raid the rich merchant caravans travelling west from Persia, yet, Iranians being Muslim, he could not do. Thus Wahhab proclaimed the Shia form of Islam practiced in Persia to be un-Islamic, thereby justifying Ibn Sa’ud’s raids, which increased pre-oil wealth handsomely.

04: In order to increase the power of his own sect, excluding other Islamic influences, Wahhab also declared Sufis, and other branches of more mystical forms of Islam, to be un-Islamic. He also banned music and dancing.

05: Wahhab effectively reduced his form of Islam to something approaching a prison code, which merely existed to be obeyed.

06: When Ibn Sa’ud conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, putting himself in charge of the lucrative Haj pilgrimage, which all Muslims able to do so are encouraged to perform at least once, he was faced with a large group of Egyptian pilgrims singing their traditional Haj songs. On the advice of Wahhab – for whom music was anathema – all these Egyptians pilgrims were slaughtered.

07: Wahhab, to further his own ambitions of becoming global Caliph, began emphasising passages in the Koran urging Jihad against infidels as a divine injunction. Some scholars even suggest that Wahhab himself embellished such passages to make them sound more like a physical, rather than a spiritual war.

08: The Koran can only be read in Arabic, since more than an third of it is impossibly difficult to comprehend, due to the antiquity of the language. All translations are thus interpretations, and Wahhabi translations are among the most prevalent, and the most suspect, in their presentation of Jihad as a literal war, rather than the inner, spiritual struggle it is – much like the war referred to in the Bhagavad Gita.

09: It has been well known what the Saudi royalty spent their half of the sudden and unexpected torrent of oil dollars on; yet few seem aware of what the Wahhabi theocrats did with their share. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. From the 1970s on, Wahhabi money was poured into free schools, built all over the world, and not merely in nominally Islamic countries. Africa has been a major target. The form of Islam taught in these schools was the heretical doctrine of Wahhab, preaching a violent Jihad as one of its major tenets. This has not gone unnoticed – a friend of mine in Zambia tried to close down such schools – yet free education has proved hard to argue against, especially when it is accompanied by such perquisites as free loans for agricultural equipment, clothing, and so on.

10: Except in nations where school curricula are carefully monitored, the Wahhabi heresy is now being taught as Islam, encouraging, among many monstrosities, the glories of martyrdom in all its hideous forms. Furthermore, through a complex network of banking facilities, Wahhabi money is financing Jihadi movements everywhere, providing weapons and expertise.

11: Ask yourself why the only airplane allowed to fly on 9/11 carried members of the Saudi royal family out of the U.S.A. Then ask yourself if the C.I.A., with all its resources, is unaware of Wahhabi involvement in international terror.

12: Hardly any average citizen understands the Sunni-Shia schism in Islam – why is this not explained by the media? Is one person in a million aware of the Wahhabite heresy co-ruling Saudi Arabia, and dividing its wealth? How many ‘news junkies’ know that Wahhabism is solely responsible for the current fear of Islam as a threat to world peace? Why should this be?

One possible answer to such nagging questions is that the current situation suits someone with the power to keep it going for their own interests. By far the most barbaric and backward of wealthy world states, Saudi Arabia remains unscathed by tribulations afflicting much of the Arab world. They even have a secret yet widely acknowledged pact of mutual cooperation with Israel. Besides the Wahhabi menace, one would expect a little more pressure brought to bear on the Kingdom by western feminists. Yet the descendants of Ibn Sa’ud and Wahhab seem to dwell within a titanium time capsule, within which they are free to run a society on 12^th century lines, as well as to sponsor and espouse movements and activities which are by far the most disturbing, lethal and disruptive in the world where dwell the rest of us. Harass your senators, congressmen, and members of parliament, I suggest. Ask these questions, and demand answers. No one more than I would be happier to learn that answers are available. I would post them here, without doubt. In the meantime, wait for U.S. efforts to safeguard the oil that most Iraqis still imagine is theirs; and, of course, do nothing for Syria – neediest of needy spots – because Syrians don’t have to imagine they own oil; they know they do not. It is up to us to make this planet a better place, and forcing the media to provide a little context for its discombobulated and hysterical content would be a good place to start.

With love, as always,

Paul William Roberts.