reply to post by Unferth
Ummm, no, US mosques do not receive grants directly from the Saudi government. Do you honestly think the Sauds make direct payments when they spread
their money around?? Do you think that would be wise?
Of course, its well known that the house of Saud gives money to organizations which have been implicated in terrorism. For example, they give money to
Hamas; they've been propping up the Muslim Brotherhood with grants for decades. CAIR (council for American-Islamic Relations), which has been
indicted for conveying money to Hamas (and possibly contributing funds to radicalized mosques in America) have been receiving Saudi money for years.
The Sauds are deeply involved in promoting Islamic extremism, as Daniel Pipes documents in Militant Islam Reaches America, and his earlier book, In
the Path of God. However, your naivete is in assuming that because America does business with Saudi Arabia, then the CIA (of course) must be colluding
with the Sauds. That just doesn't add up when you scrutinize the pesky details.
No place on earth has as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Since the Sauds are well aware of the power they possess with the oil they have, whats to stop them
from doing with their money what they want to do with it???? This is the dilemma created by free market economics in geo-political relations. Assuming
(which is logical to assume) America doesn't want terrorist attacks happening, then logically, they should be able to control, or prevent the Sauds
from promoting their Wahibist/Salafist ideology in the Islamic world, correct??? No, quite wrong. The leverage is on the side of the Sauds. The Sauds
have something that America (and the western countries) desperately need in order to stay economically afloat: oil. This means they have no choice but
to compromise with the House of Saud.
A similar situation exists with the Chinese. How come the world is obsessed with the supposed human rights abuses of Israel, yet mostly ignore the far
larger human rights abuses of the Chinese? Because the Chinese have leverage - economic primacy - while the Israelis do not. Furthermore, while the
Chinese are allowed to freely oppose dissidents of the communist party, and over-zealous promoters of western style democracy, Israel - a full
democracy - has to deal with the economic fortitude of the predominantly Islamic OPEC countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait,
who with their economic leverage, are able to put the unfavourable situation of their fellow Arabs (Palestinians) on the forefront of the
international agenda. This again is due to leverage. It's on their side. Because it is on their side, countries who would otherwise occupy themselves
with the facts of the Israel-Palestine conflict, have no choice but to promote the view narrated by the Arab countries. Why? Because these countries -
the Europeans, Americans, in particular - have massive oil contracts with them.
Back in the 80's the Philippines (which also deals with Islamic extremism) decided to establish economic ties with Israel, which in turn led them to
support the Jewish state. What was the response from the OPEC countries??? They decided not to renew their oil contract with the Philippines. That was
more than enough to get the Philippines to check themselves, abjure their support for Israel, and condemn the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
Fact is, the west, due to the living standards it has become accustomed to, is simultaneously weakened in the international arena by those 3rd and 2nd
world countries which trade with them. Who do you think would suffer more in the case of an Saudi oil embargo against America? America, or Saudi
Arabia?? The Sauds have potential clients in the Chinese and Indians. Right now, however, a great deal of their business is with the west. Whether we
like it or not, as the current situation stands, they have a certain latitude when it comes to what they want to do with their money. If they want to
advance Islamic radicalism in the Muslim world, there's nothing America can really say about it. Their hands are tied. If they turn one way, defend
their morals, they risk the economic backlash from the Sauds (and the Sauds do not like, just as the Chinese do not like, being overtly vituperated by
America); if they compromise their morals, they maintain strong economic ties with the Sauds, and thus the Free Market system which supports
entrepreneurial growth at home. However, they have to deal with those who criticize their morals, or, as conspiracy theorists are won't to do, accuse
them of controlling Al Qaeda, despite the fact that Salafism, Wahabism, and the spectrum of Islamism which combines politics with religion, develops
quite naturally on Islamic soil.