Why America Funded Wahhabism In The Eighties.

Wahhabism, a messianic radicalism that arose in the 18th century, hopes to restore a fantasized caliphate centered on a desert, a sacred book, and two holy sites, Mecca and Medina. Born in massacre and blood, it manifests itself in a surreal relationship with women, a prohibition against non-Muslims treading on sacred territory, and ferocious religious laws. That translates into an obsessive hatred of imagery and representation and therefore art, but also of the body, nakedness and freedom. Saudi Arabia is a Daesh that has made it.

The West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia is striking: It salutes the theocracy as its ally but pretends not to notice that it is the world’s chief ideological sponsor of Islamist culture. The younger generations of radicals in the so-called Arab world were not born jihadists. They were suckled in the bosom of Fatwa Valley, a kind of Islamist Vatican with a vast industry that produces theologians, religious laws, books, and aggressive editorial policies and media campaigns.
www.nytimes.com...

Watch the vid and klik the link pls, it appears that what is now a hell hole called the Middle East need not have been, for it was not always thus, much of the West and especially America suffers from selective amnesia , we think that 30 or 40 yrs ago was a longtime even though such history took place within many of us lifetime.


For those too young to get this a quick education is from the movie Charlie Wilson's War.

Former congressman Charlie Wilson helped fund Afghanistan's resistance to the Soviet Union. His story was told in the book and film Charlie Wilson's War
www.biography.com...

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Interesting.

Note that Saudi Arabia refuses to take even one of the refugees but has offered to build Mosques in America for the refugees America takes in.


Hey, but they prop up the petrodollar, right?

OP, expect deafening silence from the jingoist patriot on this revelation, as the Washington think tanks that promulgated America's ME policy will never acknowledge their role in the current ongoing mess. They haven't crafted the sound bites to shape public opinion on it so they just pretend it doesn't exist - insisting that this is just the result of them "hating us for our freedoms," or that they've been beheading each other for thousands of years to this is just no different than that.

In the 80's the CIA created the clandestine network of arms dealers to smuggle black-market Soviet arms to the Mujaheddin to fight the Soviets, calling it "the network." That network became Bin Laden's blueprint for Al Qaeda, Arabic for The Network. We aided and abetted the rise of Sunni Wahabism to drive back Shi'ite Muslims in Iran. We allied ourselves with the Taliban and struck oil deals with them to keep the Russian's plans for a ME pipeline a pipe dream. We let Big Oil direct ME policy, especially it's designs to topple the regimes of Gulf states that didn't ally with the petrodollar.

We Americans should recognize the damage caused by policies created by think tanks operating in the interests of corporations, both domestic and multinational, over the interests of citizens. These think tanks have been the hidden hand in America's role in siding with Wahabism, the Taliban, and the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIS; They are: the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the Project for the New American Century, among a dozen others, that have all pushed hard for the destructive policies of destabilization and regime change/civil war that plays directly into the hands of the hard core jihadists and Wahabists. (a more thorough list of those think tanks are here: Ne oconservative Think Tank Influence on US Policies)

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Excellent perspectives, Blackmarketeer. The government (military) doesn't know what it's doing- - flounders all over the place; doesn't really care who it hurts and sure as hell doesn't want to talk about it. (Yes, that's what you said. Just summarizing.)

originally posted by: abe froman
Interesting.

Note that Saudi Arabia refuses to take even one of the refugees but has offered to build Mosques in America for the refugees America takes in.

Hey, but they prop up the petrodollar, right?

That's not completely true. Saudi Arabia doesn't take Syrian "refugees", but it does take in Syrians as temporary workers. In fact, they have an estimated 500,000 Syrians working there right now as cheap, temporary workers.

There are 500,000 Syrians in Saudi Arabia, according to Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf region at the UNHCR. In official documentation they are referred to as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress,” he said.

Syria’s Refugees Feel More Welcome in Europe Than in the Gulf

And ironically, the article I linked is criticizing and not praising the Arabian Gulf countries, because of the conditions for people when they get there. So it's not a pro-Saudi bias at all.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

From what I've read the women would fare just as badly, if not worse, in Saudi as they do in some of the other warped ME countries.

a reply to: Spider879

Oh Spider, I wanted to add this too. Here's a reprint of a 1993 article about the poster boy of Wahhabis.

1. This link shows a picture of the article and a summary of it.

This Mind-Boggling Profile Of Osama Bin Laden Came Out Exactly 20 Years Ago Today

2. And this article links the entire article.

Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace: The Saudi businessman who recruited mujahedin now uses them for large-scale building projects in Sudan. Robert Fisk met him in Almatig

EDIT to Add: Oh, there's a second book that goes along with "Charlie Wilson's War". It's called "Ghost Wars". I read them both at the same time & a lot of the info overlaps. I think there's a third major book on the subject called "Blowback", but I never read it. lol

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: enlightenedservant

From what I've read the women would fare just as badly, if not worse, in Saudi as they do in some of the other warped ME countries.

Saudi Arabia has some of the most backwards laws when it comes to women. There are even Islamic women's rights groups there that use the Qur'an and instances from Islamic tradition to prove their stances.

And remember the women who protest there by driving? It isn't against Islam for women to drive, nor is it officially against Saudi law. But it's an unwritten rule there with a lot of their males, kind of like foot binding was for women in China & the whole "keep her barefoot & pregnant" theme in the American South (here). So it's really a matter of jerks controlling women.

And as for the workers there, people don't seem to realize this but Saudi Arabia just officially abolished slavery in 1962. And they didn't fully get rid of it; they replaced it with the "kafala" system which is nearly as bad. In theory, it's a guest worker program. But in practice, many times it's just as bad as slavery.

Makes sense.

Ronald Reagan came from the "red commie fear" era.

Therefore, he was more than happy to bargain with the devil if it meant any chance of burying those 'godforsaken heathen commies' at whatever price.

That along with the added bonus of becoming all chummy wummy with the oil owners to get rock bottom prices for ourselves...

What could possibly go wrong ?



Man, what a friggin FUBAR we've gotten ourselves into.

Radical Islam is actually a pretty recent development, like in the last 50 or 60 years or so. There's a whole bunch of factors contributing to its rise in modern times, along with all its variations, like how we've got different sects like Somalia's Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Islamic State, Boko Haram etc etc - and these groups do differ; even Al-Qaeda, the ones behind September 11, have condemned Islamic State for being way too extreme.

As for Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism, well there's a bit of history there. It was essentially founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who protested against foreign cultural influence on Islamic peoples, and fiercely desired a sort of reformation in the practice of the Islamic faith, chiefly by stripping away the influence of other cultures. This lead to the condemnation of Muslims who differed in their religious practices, such as those who honoured saints and even their dead families, as it supposedly detracted from their reverence of the Almighty God (remember, "Allah" is simply the Arabic term for God and their use is just like how Christians use the word God to refer to the Biblical one). All non-Sunni Muslims were deemed apostates, and the concept of three pillars was introduced - referring to one God, one King, one Mosque.

This concept enabled Wahhabism to be a very effective method of ruling a population. The USA (and other Western countries) perceived Saudi Arabia's government to be very powerful as a result of their strict governance, and they had no real reason to protest against a foreign society simply for being different. Ties to Saudi Arabia were primarily based on economic reasons. It's a country rich in natural resources, so of course diplomatic harmony was desirable. At the time, around the 80's, it made sense to support such a regime.

The Bin Laden family, for instance, was and still is a very influential family, with their vast wealth derived mostly from oil trading. In recent years many people have pointed out photos depicting US officials and presidents (and others from Western countries; the US isn't alone in this) meeting with powerful Middle Eastern families and companies, and suggested a connection to Western nations funding extreme Islam. But in reality, it's all economics. Groups like the Islamic State reject the "three pillars" of Saudi Wahhabism, and so, while they may have origins in the ideology, do not belong to it - they are a separate entity.

Think about it - why wouldn't the US (and once again, many other Western countries) want strong diplomatic ties to a wealthy nation like Saudi Arabia? Yeah, from a Western perspective their culture isn't very nice in regards to religious freedom and women's rights etc, but cultural differences are no reason to avoid a potentially very beneficial partnership.

Saudi Wahhabists are not terrorists. They have no interest in bombing Western cities and all that. You gotta remember that Islam is a diverse religion - like how in Christianity you've got Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans etc etc. While there's certainly some connection between Saudi Wahhabism and the rise of Muslim extremists, I think it's very highly unlikely that the US fully expected the emergence of terrorists groups, because, well, why would they want that? War is expensive, and bad for the economy.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Much thanks for the links enlightenedservant, Osama was one of our many guys with whom we did business that didn't work out so well, with we played footsie with Saddam against Iran because they were upset that we and the Brits, overthrow a democratically elected leader named Mohammed Mosaddeq whose sin was he wanted his country's wealth which is oil to be in the hands of Iranians or Persians...the nerve of him!, so we gave them a brutal dictator supplied with arms and money care of U.S tax dollars lasting 30yrs. But we can't tell that to average Joe blow America who still think that we were just peacefully going about our business one Sept 11th when out of the blue a bunch of A-rabs attacked us because we go to church, drink beer,love bacon and our women walked about with skirts above the knees.

Now the big question is:

How many more decades of this nightmare do we have to endure before western allied overlords finally fess up and say "Sorry folks, we royally f'ed up. It's time to make nice with Russia, join ranks and snuff out this ME fire once and for all."

I swear when I was in Saudi Arabia I had an English girl friend who was a flight attendant for Saudia Airlines. Some of the crap she had to put up with I would not wish upon a dog much less a human female. After 9/11 we should have been all over Saudi Arabia but no lets go after Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.... This world is some kinda messed up and the sheep just follow along thinking about their next pay check and hoping the IRS will leave them alone..

a reply to: DeepThoughtCriminal

I think it's very highly unlikely that the US fully expected the emergence of terrorists groups, because, well, why would they want that? War is expensive, and bad for the economy

My friend you need to reread your 1984, war is actually great for certain sectors of the economy, it drives production and employment even spawn new developments in technology.

It goes back a bit further than the 80's too.

In the tail end of WWII, after the Yalta conference, FDR sailed to Great Bitter Lake, on the Suez. There he met King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia. They say FDR was there to petition the Saudi's to let Jewish refugees settle in Palestine. But when they left, an agreement known as the Quincy Agreement (signed on the USS Quincy), had been signed stating that the US would support, supply and train the Saudi military in exchange for oil. They would also promise to never bother the Saudi's about their religion.

That basically set the stage for where we are today.

I think it's time for the west to recheck who its allies are...and why they are allies in the first place.

The Quincy Agreement

Bitter Lake - BBC Documentary

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Sparky thanks for the links, stuff I didn't know.

a reply to: Spider879

The doc is 40 min in 3 parts, so pretty long, but packed with info. Really worth the watch. It goes deeper than just taking about the Quincy Agreement and extrapolates how it has shaped the world today. Especially in regards to Afghanistan, the US and Saudi Arabia

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: Spider879

The doc is 40 min in 3 parts, so pretty long, but packed with info. Really worth the watch. It goes deeper than just taking about the Quincy Agreement and extrapolates how it has shaped the world today. Especially in regards to Afghanistan, the US and Saudi Arabia

Thanks will view it in full in a couple hrs,just your blurb alone got me hooked.

a reply to: Spider879

Wahabism was first supported by Britain as Mr. Hempher the Britain spy declares in his books. Wahabism was both the helper and the surge of the emergence of Saudi kingdom.
Both Iran's kingdom and Saudi's kingdom were supported by Britain, after the world wars and some events, both of them were captured by young USA so that USA's based it's so called twin pillars policy in the middle east on kingdom of Iran and Saudi.

But some years later, kingdom of Iran collapsed and nowadays kingdom of Saudi is becoming loose because of it's wars in Yemen, and lack of capable princes in the Saudi family and their internal rivalries.
They could not be successful in Syria, the oppositions are reaching the red sea, also Egypt is pressed like a spring.
Overall, USA and it's allies will have a hard time in the middle east. I hope that they use their brains better and do not promote more insecurity in the middle east by the use of their illegitimate allies. This is a boomerang that returns to themselves and threatens their economy and hegemony.