Is Saudi Arabia the REAL Problem? - their role in US Intervention in the Middle East

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


I think we agree agree with each other quite well. Its my understanding that the majority of militant Islam is funded by Saudi, Kuwaiti, or Yemeni money. In thinking about what happens when their oil runs out, I can only think of a very violent last gasp that seems to always occur when anything dies. Despite having 75 years of commercial oil production, people are hard pressed to think of a market leading good or service that is indigenous to Saudi Arabia. There is very little international commerce there that isn't supported by oil. That's a huge problem when the money and oil start to trickle to a stop.

The Saudis certainly fund Al Nusra Front, which is basically the de facto military extension of Al Qaeda in Syra. Al Nusra Front also happens to be fundamentalist... funny coincidence. But since they have the most money, they can hire the most fighters, and therefore indoctrinate the most fighters.




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 



The Saudis certainly fund Al Nusra Front, which is basically the de facto military extension of Al Qaeda in Syra. Al Nusra Front also happens to be fundamentalist... funny coincidence. But since they have the most money, they can hire the most fighters, and therefore indoctrinate the most fighters.


Perhaps it is simply the shrinking value of the petro dollar that is most responsible for the recent "springs". The Saudis may have more of those dollars at this time but they know they'll have to spend them NOW to hold everyone in line before their money becomes totally worthless and won't buy enough fighters to maintain their preeminence in the Arab world. The gold Dinar was and is a Saudi king's worst enemy, that's what they're fighting and the US is their staunch ally, along with Israel and the central bankers. It always comes down to money equals power.

But here is a short excerpt of the position of a non-Wahhabi Muslim following the WTC attack.


The Wahhabi sect, which has not been around for more than two and a half centuries, has never been part of traditional Sunni Islam, which rejects it and which it rejects. Orthodox Sunnis, who make up the vast majority of Muslims, are neither Wahhabis nor terrorists, for the traditional law they follow forbids killing civilian non-combatants to make any kind of point, political or otherwise. Those who have travelled through North Africa, Turkey, Egypt, or the Levant know what traditional Muslims are like in their own lands. Travellers find them decent, helpful, and hospitable people, and feel safer in Muslim lands than in many places, such as Central America, for example, or for that matter, Central Park.

On the other hand, there will always be publicists who hate Muslims, and who for ideological or religious reasons want others to do so. Where there is an ill-will, there is a way. A fifth of humanity are Muslims, and if to err is human, we may reasonably expect Muslims to err also, and it is certainly possible to stir up hatred by publicizing bad examples. But if experience is any indication, the only people convinced by media pieces about the inherent fanaticism of Muslims will be those who don’t know any. Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral.

And we Americans should take the necessary measures to get the ship of state back on a course that is credible, fair, and at bottom at least moral in our dealings with the other peoples of the world. For if our ideas of how to get along with other nations do not exceed the morality of action-thriller destruction movies, we may well get more action than we paid for.
www.masud.co.uk...

And HERE is the culprit behind all the internecine wars and terrorism ...


Sunni-Shiite Cooperation Grows, Worrying U.S. Officials

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

Published: April 8, 2004
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


I have no heart strings left for these animals. Our real enemy is Saudi Arabia, it was their citizens who flew the planes and killed 3000 Americans. We should have wiped them out along with every other Arab country in that region. We would have . . . except . . . Geroge Bush is an honorary Arab Prince, and willingly sacrificed American Blood and Treasure to save these camel merchants asses. The US has the military capability to end the Islamic threat to this nation and Western Civilization for all time, right now! We need to end these parasites who refuse to field their own armies to defend their beliefs. John



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Clearly the Wahhabi and the British were in bed together until the late twenties.


The British Foreign Office had previously begun to support Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Emir of the Hejaz by seconding Lawrence of Arabia to him in 1915. The Saudi Ikhwan began to conflict with Emir Feisal also in 1917 just as his sons Abdullah and Faisal entered Damascus. The Treaty of Darin remained in effect until superseded by the Jeddah conference of 1927 and the Dammam conference of 1952 during both of which Ibn Saud extended his boundaries past the Anglo-Ottoman Blue Line. After Darin, he stockpiled the weapons and supplies with which the British provided him, including a 'tribute' of £5,000 per month.[15] After World War I, he received further support from the British, including a glut of surplus munitions. He launched his campaign against the Al Rashidi in 1920; by 1922 they had been all but destroyed.


Rise to power

In 1927 the Wahhabi and the Saudi government had a falling out. Wahhabi extremists revolt against Saudi regime because of it's dealings with the West. Rebellion is crushed. Extremists relocate in Egypt. Thoughts of Jihad against the West and America become central to the movement

So at that point you begin to see the rise of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Diisenchanted
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Clearly the Wahhabi and the British were in bed together until the late twenties.


The British Foreign Office had previously begun to support Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Emir of the Hejaz by seconding Lawrence of Arabia to him in 1915. The Saudi Ikhwan began to conflict with Emir Feisal also in 1917 just as his sons Abdullah and Faisal entered Damascus. The Treaty of Darin remained in effect until superseded by the Jeddah conference of 1927 and the Dammam conference of 1952 during both of which Ibn Saud extended his boundaries past the Anglo-Ottoman Blue Line. After Darin, he stockpiled the weapons and supplies with which the British provided him, including a 'tribute' of £5,000 per month.[15] After World War I, he received further support from the British, including a glut of surplus munitions. He launched his campaign against the Al Rashidi in 1920; by 1922 they had been all but destroyed.


Rise to power

In 1927 the Wahhabi and the Saudi government had a falling out. Wahhabi extremists revolt against Saudi regime because of it's dealings with the West. Rebellion is crushed. Extremists relocate in Egypt. Thoughts of Jihad against the West and America become central to the movement

So at that point you begin to see the rise of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt


Some good information here. So we can see that the issue is pretty complex. It appears that the Wahhabi have some more deep seeded issues with the West and it doesn't just boil down to having the West support their economy, or fight their wars. I suppose it could have been any country with sufficient military power but the US generally pulls other western powers in with them, so we are the most logical choice. The ideas presented in my OP are gaining more support or at least a sturdier background for Saudi Arabia being our biggest problem.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Diisenchanted
 


So we have established the ties between the Wahhabi and the British government as far back as 1902.

How does America fit into the picture? This might help to explain.


There have been two constants in U.S.-Saudi relations for decades: oil and Gulf security, particularly the security of the Saudi royal family. Our two societies have had little in common, and yet despite deep differences, we have had a “special relationship” with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for over sixty years, really since the early 1930s, though it was not described as a special relationship until after WWII. The two countries have had a compact based on Saudi oil in return for a U.S. security umbrella over the kingdom to protect it from all foreign foes. This is a relationship very definitely anchored in state interests, not common ideologies or political or social systems, which remain at extreme odds with each other.


There is practically no civil society in Saudi Arabia. The country is run by the al-Saud royal family in partnership with a highly conservative religious establishment espousing a fundamentalist theology known as Wahhabism. The alliance goes back to the mid-eighteenth century.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia Since the 1930s

From the clip posted below you can see that America has had ties with Saudi Arabia at least as long as Saudi Arabia has been a nation state.

For much of its history most of the region has been controlled by a patchwork of tribal rulers. The Al Saud (the Saudi royal family), were originally minor tribal rulers in Nejd in central Arabia. From the mid-18th century, imbued with the religious zeal of the Wahabbi Islamic movement, they became aggressively expansionist. Over the following 150 years the extent of the Al Saud territory fluctuated. However, between 1902 and 1927, the Al Saud leader, Abdul Aziz, carried out a series of wars of conquest which resulted in his creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

History of Saudi Arabia

Since the end of world war 2 America has done everything within its power to protect the Saudi royal family.


Although Saudi Arabia and the United States obviously did not share any borders, the kingdom's relationship with Washington was the cornerstone of its foreign policy as well as its regional security policy. The special relationship with the United States actually dated to World War II. By the early 1940s, the extent of Saudi oil resources had become known, and the United States petroleum companies that held the concession to develop the oil fields were urging Washington to assume more responsibility for security and political stability in the region. Consequently, in 1943 the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that the defense of Saudi Arabia was a vital interest to the United States and dispatched the first United States military mission to the kingdom. In addition to providing training for the Saudi army, the United States Army Corps of Engineers constructed the airfield at Dhahran and other facilities. In early 1945, Abd al Aziz and Roosevelt cemented the nascent alliance in a meeting aboard a United States warship in the Suez Canal. Subsequently, Saud, Faisal, Khalid, and Fahd continued their father's precedent of meeting with United States presidents.

Relations with the United States

The more I look into this the more troubling it becomes. It appears that the British government did what it could to see to it that The Saudi government rose to power, and since it's inception the US government has done what it can to see to it that it remains that way.

So you are right Saudi Arabia is pretty much the problem in the middle east. The part that bothers me is the fact that both the UK and the US have been in bed with them since day one.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   


The ideas presented in my OP are gaining more support or at least a sturdier background for Saudi Arabia being our biggest problem.
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Lets take a step back for a moment.

When you look at the troubles in the middle east it comes down to the divisions between Shiites and Sunni's. Here is a map that shows which part of the middle east is controlled by which sect.
World Map - Muslim Distribution

From the map you can see that the dark green area is controlled by the Shiites and the light green area's are controlled by the Sunni's.

This is where it starts to get really ugly. If you take a closer look at the map you will notice that the major Shiite controlled areas consist of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Yemen with some small pockets in Pakistan and Oman.

When compared with the recent wars the US has involved itself in you begin to see the correlation. The US seems to have it out for the Shiites. Not only have we went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan we have carried out countless drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

Now who is it that Obama seems to have it out for now? The answer is obvious Iran and Syria.

A simple Google search will show the ties between the Saudi's and the US government in gulf war 1, gulf war 2 , and the war in Afghanistan.

We seem to be doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia in all of our recent wars.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Diisenchanted



The ideas presented in my OP are gaining more support or at least a sturdier background for Saudi Arabia being our biggest problem.
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Lets take a step back for a moment.

When you look at the troubles in the middle east it comes down to the divisions between Shiites and Sunni's. Here is a map that shows which part of the middle east is controlled by which sect.
World Map - Muslim Distribution

From the map you can see that the dark green area is controlled by the Shiites and the light green area's are controlled by the Sunni's.

This is where it starts to get really ugly. If you take a closer look at the map you will notice that the major Shiite controlled areas consist of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Yemen with some small pockets in Pakistan and Oman.

When compared with the recent wars the US has involved itself in you begin to see the correlation. The US seems to have it out for the Shiites. Not only have we went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan we have carried out countless drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

Now who is it that Obama seems to have it out for now? The answer is obvious Iran and Syria.

A simple Google search will show the ties between the Saudi's and the US government in gulf war 1, gulf war 2 , and the war in Afghanistan.

We seem to be doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia in all of our recent wars.



Yup, I mentioned those exact countries and was grasping at a similar point in the OP. There is correlation between every country we've attacked through religion. Take it a step further and look at every Middle Eastern Country that has been outspoken against the USD as an OPEC reserve currency, you'll find that it has been predominantly Shi'Ite governments or countries with a Shi'ite majority as citizens. Saudi Arabia has been the catalyst for our involvement, and one of the biggest backers of our intervention.. and you can see why.. Just as you said, we've been doing the bidding for them in all of the recent wars there.

Also, as you've mentioned.. It is rather alarming to see our involvement and the UK's involvement since Saudi Arabia's inception. It's as if it is all a part of a grand scheme.. A century or perhaps longer scheme that has benefited western civilization with oil and profit and the Saudi's with power and profit. It's a win-win situation for all parties economically.

I think we're connecting some pretty big dots here..
edit on 10-9-2013 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


i agree with everything except the 911 angle..

if 7 of the 19 supposed hijackers were found to be alive... its time to revise the governments position on that conspiracy theory..

however, there were over a hundred israeli spies arrested that day no one seems to remember.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


It is kind of ironic how all things tie together.

When you look at the amount of money that Saudi Arabia put into building mosques here in America it starts to make you wonder.



It's been estimated that as many as 80 percent of American mosques have received funds from Saudi Arabia, where the official state religion is radical Wahhabi Islam
Mosque Funding?

Even the Boston bombers went to a Saudi funded mosque.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 



Saudi Arabia has been the catalyst for our involvement, and one of the biggest backers of our intervention.. and you can see why.. Just as you said, we've been doing the bidding for them in all of the recent wars there.

Also, as you've mentioned.. It is rather alarming to see our involvement and the UK's involvement since Saudi Arabia's inception. It's as if it is all a part of a grand scheme.. A century or perhaps longer scheme that has benefited western civilization with oil and profit and the Saudi's with power and profit. It's a win-win situation for all parties economically.

I think we're connecting some pretty big dots here..


Please allow me to throw another dot at you ...


D. Mustafa Turan wrote, in The Donmeh Jews, that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was a descendant of a family of Donmeh Jews from Turkey. The Donmeh were descendants of followers of the infamous false-messiah of Judaism, Shabbetai Zevi, who shocked the Jewish world in 1666 by converting to Islam. Viewing it as a sacred mystery, Zevi's followers imitated his conversion to Islam, though secretly keeping to their Kabbalistic doctrines. In Europe, the Shabbeteans were eventually led a century later by Jacob Frank, claiming to be a reincarnation of Zevi. And, according to Rabbi Antelman in To Eliminate the Opiate, to them belonged the Rothschilds who had a hand in the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati. The Donmeh community of Turkey were concentrated in the city of Salonika, which became a hotbed of Masonic activity, and from which the Young Turk movement evolved, which aided in the collapse of the Muslim empire of the Ottoman Turks. There is evidence that Ataturk himself, the founder of the modern Turkish state, was of Donmeh origin as well.
www.terrorism-illuminati.com...

I highly recommend reading this entire report.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I was actually just getting ready to post that.

lol

Star for you.

Edit to add: So now we seem to have Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK and America in bed together. Makes for an ugly orgy!
edit on 10-9-2013 by Diisenchanted because: (no reason given)


Edit to add: Did you happen to notice the year in the Jewish connection? 1 666 how weird is that?
edit on 10-9-2013 by Diisenchanted because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Diisenchanted
reply to post by frazzle
 


I was actually just getting ready to post that.

lol

Star for you.

Edit to add: So now we seem to have Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK and America in bed together. Makes for an ugly orgy!
edit on 10-9-2013 by Diisenchanted because: (no reason given)


Its good to hear this is known! Otherwise we wouldn't have even half a clue as to how much trouble we're in, and why.

Star backatcha.


Yeah, I did take note of the year.

edit on 10-9-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

frazzle
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 



Saudi Arabia has been the catalyst for our involvement, and one of the biggest backers of our intervention.. and you can see why.. Just as you said, we've been doing the bidding for them in all of the recent wars there.

Also, as you've mentioned.. It is rather alarming to see our involvement and the UK's involvement since Saudi Arabia's inception. It's as if it is all a part of a grand scheme.. A century or perhaps longer scheme that has benefited western civilization with oil and profit and the Saudi's with power and profit. It's a win-win situation for all parties economically.

I think we're connecting some pretty big dots here..


Please allow me to throw another dot at you ...


D. Mustafa Turan wrote, in The Donmeh Jews, that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was a descendant of a family of Donmeh Jews from Turkey. The Donmeh were descendants of followers of the infamous false-messiah of Judaism, Shabbetai Zevi, who shocked the Jewish world in 1666 by converting to Islam. Viewing it as a sacred mystery, Zevi's followers imitated his conversion to Islam, though secretly keeping to their Kabbalistic doctrines. In Europe, the Shabbeteans were eventually led a century later by Jacob Frank, claiming to be a reincarnation of Zevi. And, according to Rabbi Antelman in To Eliminate the Opiate, to them belonged the Rothschilds who had a hand in the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati. The Donmeh community of Turkey were concentrated in the city of Salonika, which became a hotbed of Masonic activity, and from which the Young Turk movement evolved, which aided in the collapse of the Muslim empire of the Ottoman Turks. There is evidence that Ataturk himself, the founder of the modern Turkish state, was of Donmeh origin as well.
www.terrorism-illuminati.com...

I highly recommend reading this entire report.


There is Israel's entrance. Appears to be the earliest of all associated nations. The banking Cartels got their affiliation here.. .

You know, I was aware of everything from a macro perspective, (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Banking Elite, The US) but when you break it down into the micros it really starts to paint the picture clearly.

We can see how Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Banks and Western Countries have been in this together for quite a long while. It really appears to be a power and money game between this cartel and the constant "enemies" we're warring with.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


Saudi Arabia is:

1. A backward tribal country. The oil wealth has not changed way of thinking.
2. Has an absolute autocratic government.
3. Is a sponsor of terrorism.
4. Is spreading regressive falsehood in the name of Islam.
5. Is a highly militarized and violent society.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a very serious problem. The Saudi king needs to be removed by force. It citizens need to be reeducated.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 


I think Jewish influence in Europe goes back much further than that.

This is probably kind of off topic, but one interesting tidbit of history is glassmaking, which apparently had its origins in ancient Syria and Egypt, but was somehow later introduced to Europe by the Jews where the techniques in the manufacture of glass, which was in very strong demand all over Europe, was held in strict secret. A monopoly, in other words, or maybe glass keys to the kingdom.

www.hebrewhistory.info...



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
The entire problem is that we are over there and that the US government is on the take. Heck, Hillary Clinton got 500k in jewelry from the House of Saud last year.

So I know this thread will likely devolve into a Muslims vs Zionists but I say to hell with them both. Pull out everything and let them deal with it.



But yes, the entire agenda in the middle east right now is two factions playing out right now:

To control the trade routes of oil.
To maintain the petrol dollar.

and both sides don't care one bit about "democracy" and the "poor children"
edit on 11-9-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I'd say you're on the mark with this. Also it's not so much the U.S. consumption of Middle Eastern oil (majority of ours comes from Canada and countries around the Gulf of Mexico), but U.S. favored contracts and keeping oil pegged to the dollar. (Also there's likely U.S. arms and security contracting going on.) The idea is to have Europe as the buyer of this oil, instead of getting their oil from Russia. Not to mention there are likely groups in Europe that don't want to be under Russian economic influence in terms of resource availability.

Guess who sits on the real estate that would be a good spot for a pipeline up from the Mideast to Europe? And obviously the Haliburton types don't want Assad or his cronies to be in charge of anything like that. (Not saying I like Assad any, just that those vying to replace him aren't likely going to be any better.)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
You bare totally on the money with this observation.






top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join