a west sanctioned ISIS already exists

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:If anyone in India says this, Mani Shankar Aiyer, Salman Khurshid and other Sikular-cultural-termites will call him/her an intolerant, communal Chaddi.

When I posted (soon after 9/11) on Indo-Link along the same line, I received threats.......

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

 


did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

i have never seen substantive discussions of why the western govts aren't being pressurized by its citizens with such questions on this board. all i  remember from a while ago is that mr.kris realpolitik brushed the question away that the way the US deals with saudi arabia is just realpolitik. see that's the beauty of realpolitik -- it can be reliably summoned to defend holding contradictory world views; the panacea to difficult questions.  

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

i have never seen substantive discussions of why the western govts aren't being pressurized by its citizens with such questions on this board. all i  remember from a while ago is that mr.kris realpolitik brushed the question away that the way the US deals with saudi arabia is just realpolitik. see that's the beauty of realpolitik -- it can be reliably summoned to defend holding contradictory world views; the panacea to difficult questions.  

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

i have never seen substantive discussions of why the western govts aren't being pressurized by its citizens with such questions on this board. all i  remember from a while ago is that mr.kris realpolitik brushed the question away that the way the US deals with saudi arabia is just realpolitik. see that's the beauty of realpolitik -- it can be reliably summoned to defend holding contradictory world views; the panacea to difficult questions.  

YOu have been in US long enough to know the reason.  If not...here is this.

The iSlamic grudge against the West runs through iSrael. There never was a problem with the West till 1948. So unless the West drops its support and protection for iSrael the Islamic/muslim antagonism will continue indefinitely.

This was prior to the 1990s.  Since then millions of muslims have put their tents on Western soil. That has resulted in direct Christian-Muslim local conflicts due to the 6th century stubborness of the muslim culture. So, even if the West annuls its relations with iSrael, the localized muslim conflicts will simmer forever - as in India.

The reason Western govts cannot be pressurized bcz it involves dumping iSrael - and iSraeli/Jewish population has enormous clout over the Govts. Nada...not happening...

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:







since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

i have never seen substantive discussions of why the western govts aren't being pressurized by its citizens with such questions on this board. all i  remember from a while ago is that mr.kris realpolitik brushed the question away that the way the US deals with saudi arabia is just realpolitik. see that's the beauty of realpolitik -- it can be reliably summoned to defend holding contradictory world views; the panacea to difficult questions.  

YOu have been in US long enough to know the reason.  If not...here is this.

The iSlamic grudge against the West runs through iSrael. There never was a problem with the West till 1948. So unless the West drops its support and protection for iSrael the Islamic/muslim antagonism will continue indefinitely.

This was prior to the 1990s.  Since then millions of muslims have put their tents on Western soil. That has resulted in direct Christian-Muslim local conflicts due to the 6th century stubborness of the muslim culture. So, even if the West annuls its relations with iSrael, the localized muslim conflicts will simmer forever - as in India.

The reason Western govts cannot be pressurized bcz it involves dumping iSrael - and iSraeli/Jewish population has enormous clout over the Govts. Nada...not happening...

i very well know the US govt's reasons. my questions though are for and about you and other US citizens. why do you on the one hand rail about radical islamic terrorism, but accept your government's unquestioned support of its primary sponsor as fait accompli?

Kris wrote:

 


did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

i have never seen substantive discussions of why the western govts aren't being pressurized by its citizens with such questions on this board. all i  remember from a while ago is that mr.kris realpolitik brushed the question away that the way the US deals with saudi arabia is just realpolitik. see that's the beauty of realpolitik -- it can be reliably summoned to defend holding contradictory world views; the panacea to difficult questions.  

>>>I will try to address your point as best as I can, but before that I will say this. I find it disconcerting and strange that your responses to me (and maybe others here too) seem to border on personal anger, which is weird in an anonymous forum and on political issues. That of course is your prerogative as it is mine to not engage in those threads. There is more to life than international geopolitics and one person's/one twenty person's forum views on specific issues. I just got news of a distant relative who passed away, who is barely is a few years older than the average age on this board. Puts things on perspective.

My points now:

Realpolitik by its very definition is doing what is expedient to achieve certain ends and has no bearing on morality and ethics. Every civilization since the beginning of time has done it. It does not mean it precludes stupidity. American foreign policy is replete with instances of myopia on various issues, including the naive belief that democracy automatically will bloom in the middle east, ignoring the cultural background. With regard to the oil politics with SA, it is no secret it is a faustian bargain. I have said this as far back as 2001 right after 9-11 and the need to disengage by stepping up the efforts to alternative sources of energy. More recently, I pointed out the double standard with regard to Saudi Arabia of  the current administration not calling it on religious intolerance while lecturing India. I have also pointed out in the past that America disengaging from SA will itself not defang it completely considering there is demand for its product from other countries. This is a reality and the moral dilemma is real. There are no easy answers short of paying $15 per gallon at the pump which will cripple the global economy. Presumably you don't want this either. It is not as though the policy makers are not aware of this  uncomfortable dance. If nothing, they must be well aware that SA's rulers play both sides against the middle and presumably, they want to free themselves of this and being beholden to them. The pubic pressurizing the government is not going to alter this predicament. It may assuage the public's conscience, but is not going to solve the economics of it without alternate sources of energy coming to fruition.

Desert Kingdoms Versus The Great White North

Canada is far and away the biggest purveyor of crude to its southern neighbor, hitting a record 2.2 million barrels a day last year as its share of the U.S. market grew by 12 percent.

Energy expert Robert Rapier says the take-away for Americans may be "marry a Canadian," because he or she will be a citizen of an increasingly rich country. "Their budget looks good, and they're sitting on top of tremendous reserves," he says.

Saudi Arabia is a distant second, providing the U.S. with barely half as much crude as Canada. Other Persian Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. oil imports, but make up a relatively small share overall.

"People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East," says John Duffield, an energy expert and professor of political science at Georgia State University.

"In the long term, it may look like a historical anomaly that the U.S. became so involved in the Persian Gulf," he adds.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

 


did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

i have never seen substantive discussions of why the western govts aren't being pressurized by its citizens with such questions on this board. all i  remember from a while ago is that mr.kris realpolitik brushed the question away that the way the US deals with saudi arabia is just realpolitik. see that's the beauty of realpolitik -- it can be reliably summoned to defend holding contradictory world views; the panacea to difficult questions.  

>>>I will try to address your point as best as I can, but before that I will say this. I find it disconcerting and strange that your responses to me (and maybe others here too) seem to border on personal anger, which is weird in an anonymous forum and on political issues. That of course is your prerogative as it is mine to not engage in those threads. There is more to life than international geopolitics and one person's/one twenty person's forum views on specific issues. I just got news of a distant relative who passed away, who is barely is a few years older than the average age on this board. Puts things on perspective.

My points now:

Realpolitik by its very definition is doing what is expedient to achieve certain ends and has no bearing on morality and ethics. Every civilization since the beginning of time has done it. It does not mean it precludes stupidity. American foreign policy is replete with instances of myopia on various issues, including the naive belief that democracy automatically will bloom in the middle east, ignoring the cultural background. With regard to the oil politics with SA, it is no secret it is a faustian bargain. I have said this as far back as 2001 right after 9-11 and the need to disengage by stepping up the efforts to alternative sources of energy. More recently, I pointed out the double standard with regard to Saudi Arabia of  the current administration not calling it on religious intolerance while lecturing India. I have also pointed out in the past that America disengaging from SA will itself not defang it completely considering there is demand for its product from other countries. This is a reality and the moral dilemma is real. There are no easy answers short of paying $15 per gallon at the pump which will cripple the global economy. Presumably you don't want this either. It is not as though the policy makers are not aware of this  uncomfortable dance. If nothing, they must be well aware that SA's rulers play both sides against the middle and presumably, they want to free themselves of this and being beholden to them. The pubic pressurizing the government is not going to alter this predicament. It may assuage the public's conscience, but is not going to solve the economics of it without alternate sources of energy coming to fruition.

in this climate of terrorism, even realpolitik would suggest the right thing to do is disengage from saudi arabia if they don't clean up their act and withdraw their support for wahabbism. this election cycle is absolutely the right time to be raising this issue. i am surprised at your willing and compliant attitude with the US govt. if you (collective you as in US citizens who worry about terrorism) can't even get yourself to ask questions of your own government, i don't believe you when you say that terrorism worries you. and btw, the time is ripe to pull ourselves away from the saudis given we have discovered so much new energy capacity right here at home in the last five years. the importance of saudi arabia in the energy mix are wildly exaggerated.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

Desert Kingdoms Versus The Great White North

Canada is far and away the biggest purveyor of crude to its southern neighbor, hitting a record 2.2 million barrels a day last year as its share of the U.S. market grew by 12 percent.

Energy expert Robert Rapier says the take-away for Americans may be "marry a Canadian," because he or she will be a citizen of an increasingly rich country. "Their budget looks good, and they're sitting on top of tremendous reserves," he says.

Saudi Arabia is a distant second, providing the U.S. with barely half as much crude as Canada. Other Persian Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. oil imports, but make up a relatively small share overall.

"People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East," says John Duffield, an energy expert and professor of political science at Georgia State University.

"In the long term, it may look like a historical anomaly that the U.S. became so involved in the Persian Gulf," he adds.

Kris wrote:
>>>US disengagement from SA will put a dent and maybe a big one as far as SA goes, but it won't solve the problem of the sponsorship of wahabbism., for two reasons. A politically weak rulership will in fact step up the relationship with the clergy to consolidate power, wahbbism is a genie out of the bottle already. Finally,demand from other countries is not going away. The best the west can do is protect itself.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

 


did you just wake up from a deep slumber?

i have never seen substantive discussions of why the western govts aren't being pressurized by its citizens with such questions on this board. all i  remember from a while ago is that mr.kris realpolitik brushed the question away that the way the US deals with saudi arabia is just realpolitik. see that's the beauty of realpolitik -- it can be reliably summoned to defend holding contradictory world views; the panacea to difficult questions.  

>>>I will try to address your point as best as I can, but before that I will say this. I find it disconcerting and strange that your responses to me (and maybe others here too) seem to border on personal anger, which is weird in an anonymous forum and on political issues. That of course is your prerogative as it is mine to not engage in those threads. There is more to life than international geopolitics and one person's/one twenty person's forum views on specific issues. I just got news of a distant relative who passed away, who is barely is a few years older than the average age on this board. Puts things on perspective.

My points now:

Realpolitik by its very definition is doing what is expedient to achieve certain ends and has no bearing on morality and ethics. Every civilization since the beginning of time has done it. It does not mean it precludes stupidity. American foreign policy is replete with instances of myopia on various issues, including the naive belief that democracy automatically will bloom in the middle east, ignoring the cultural background. With regard to the oil politics with SA, it is no secret it is a faustian bargain. I have said this as far back as 2001 right after 9-11 and the need to disengage by stepping up the efforts to alternative sources of energy. More recently, I pointed out the double standard with regard to Saudi Arabia of  the current administration not calling it on religious intolerance while lecturing India. I have also pointed out in the past that America disengaging from SA will itself not defang it completely considering there is demand for its product from other countries. This is a reality and the moral dilemma is real. There are no easy answers short of paying $15 per gallon at the pump which will cripple the global economy. Presumably you don't want this either. It is not as though the policy makers are not aware of this  uncomfortable dance. If nothing, they must be well aware that SA's rulers play both sides against the middle and presumably, they want to free themselves of this and being beholden to them. The pubic pressurizing the government is not going to alter this predicament. It may assuage the public's conscience, but is not going to solve the economics of it without alternate sources of energy coming to fruition.

in this climate of terrorism, even realpolitik would suggest the right thing to do is disengage from saudi arabia if they don't clean up their act and withdraw their support for wahabbism. this election cycle is absolutely the right time to be raising this issue. i am surprised at your willing and compliant attitude with the US govt. if you (collective you as in US citizens who worry about terrorism) can't even get yourself to ask questions of your own government, i don't believe you when you say that terrorism worries you. and btw, the time is ripe to pull ourselves away from the saudis given we have discovered so much new energy capacity right here at home in the last five years. the importance of saudi arabia in the energy mix are wildly exaggerated.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

Desert Kingdoms Versus The Great White North

Canada is far and away the biggest purveyor of crude to its southern neighbor, hitting a record 2.2 million barrels a day last year as its share of the U.S. market grew by 12 percent.

Energy expert Robert Rapier says the take-away for Americans may be "marry a Canadian," because he or she will be a citizen of an increasingly rich country. "Their budget looks good, and they're sitting on top of tremendous reserves," he says.

Saudi Arabia is a distant second, providing the U.S. with barely half as much crude as Canada. Other Persian Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. oil imports, but make up a relatively small share overall.

"People have tended to exaggerate how much oil we imported from the Middle East," says John Duffield, an energy expert and professor of political science at Georgia State University.

"In the long term, it may look like a historical anomaly that the U.S. became so involved in the Persian Gulf," he adds.

>>>US disengagement from SA will put a dent and maybe a big one as far as SA goes, but it won't solve the problem of the sponsorship of wahabbism., for two reasons. A politically weak rulership will in fact step up the relationship with the clergy to consolidate power, wahbbism is a genie out of the bottle already. Finally,demand from other countries is not going away. The best the west can do is protect itself.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Listen folks:  In international relations no single issue - terrorism, genocide, or even a war - will cut off interaction. It did not happen when the Saudi pilots rammed WTC. so drop all that talk of controlling Wahabism, cutting off SA, etc..None of that will stop iSlamic terrorism. They are not getting all their money from SA (they have their own sources now) and the terrorists screaming  not
Saudi O Akbar.  So the link is PBUH, Koran, and Islam and anyone/any act that counters Muslim interests in any way are/will be targets.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Listen folks:  In international relations no single issue - terrorism, genocide, or even a war - will cut off interaction. It did not happen when the Saudi pilots rammed WTC. so drop all that talk of controlling Wahabism, cutting off SA, etc..None of that will stop iSlamic terrorism. They are not getting all their money from SA (they have their own sources now) and the terrorists screaming  not
Saudi O Akbar.  So the link is PBUH, Koran, and Islam and anyone/any act that counters Muslim interests in any way are/will be targets.

If what you say is true then is it a mere coincidence that the rise of extremely violent Islam parallels the rise of Saudi and oil dependence of the world?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Listen folks:  In international relations no single issue - terrorism, genocide, or even a war - will cut off interaction. It did not happen when the Saudi pilots rammed WTC. so drop all that talk of controlling Wahabism, cutting off SA, etc..None of that will stop iSlamic terrorism. They are not getting all their money from SA (they have their own sources now) and the terrorists screaming  not
Saudi O Akbar.  So the link is PBUH, Koran, and Islam and anyone/any act that counters Muslim interests in any way are/will be targets.

If what you say is true then is it a mere coincidence that the rise of extremely violent Islam parallels the rise of Saudi and oil dependence of the world?

After the oil boom in the 70s, it was all Iran, Iraq, and Saudi. Soviets invaded Afghanistan making the poor muslims mad, and received support from US, Iran, and Saudi. Do you see the trend?  Every decade the group reshuffles. Today US, Soviets, Iran, Saudi, West all are against ISIS....so where is the money coming from ?  Saudi? But Saudi is against ISIL. So the money comes from IS and its own oil money - read the article that came last month on how IS runs its Govt.

Since the 1970s, the Saudi government and its allied religious establishment have exported their extremist version of Sunni Islam around the world — all financed by their oil money.

During the 1970s and ‘80s, Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) in support of the anti-Soviet insurgents in Afghanistan that became the Taliban. The U.S. matched the Saudi contribution to ISI, but abdicated its responsibility to see where the money was going. Anxious to avoid overt provocation of the Soviets, Washington allowed Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to choose the recipients of American taxpayer dollars, and these were the most fundamentalist insurgent factions — like the Haqqani network, which plagues Afghanistan even today and has targeted American soldiers serving there.

Saudi money financed the Pakistani madrassas that provided the only available “schooling” for a generation of young Afghan male refugees. In camps devoid of women, the extreme separation of the sexes resulted in young males detached from any experience of women or family life. They were taught to memorize the Koran (in Arabic, having no idea what it said), use weapons, and hate the West. They were otherwise illiterate about both secular subjects and Islamic jurisprudence.

Since the 1990s, Saudi money has similarly financed mosques and Wahhabi-inspired teaching throughout the Balkans as well, contributing to the instability of that region.

It appears that the connection between Saudi Arabia and the Paris bombings is even more direct. Many of the plotters came from the Molenbeek neighborhood in Brussels. In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries funded Wahhabi religious schools there, displacing or taking over the more moderate mosques founded by the Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the district and helping to thwart their children’s potential for cultural integration.

We’ve also boxed ourselves in diplomatically by a generation of demonizing and isolating Iran, the major Shiite power, leaving no counterweight to the Saudi Sunni ideology. Yes, we cite the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Tehran, but forget that Iranian anti-American sentiment was a predictable result of the CIA overthrowing the elected and more or less democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953. (The U.S. acted at a British request; they wanted to control Iranian oil and Mossadegh nationalized it.) We condemned Iran to a generation of brutal dictatorship under the Shah’s notorious secret police. Should we have been surprised when the revolution that came in 1979 brought payback to the Americans?

While Iran does indeed support violence in other countries, its efforts seem rationally related to political objectives (supporting Hezbollah against the Israeli occupation, and Assad as a fellow Shiite power) and might be resolved as such. They have thus far not included assaults on uninvolved civilians and barbarism for its own sake.

So what to do at this point? We have leverage over Saudi Arabia if we choose to use it. We should stop supplying weapons — which are currently being used to attack Shiite factions in Yemen — and insist that Saudi Arabia cease financing fundamentalists throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and the Balkans. It’s pointless to apply tactical solutions to the problems of the Middle East while Saudi Arabia is free to (almost literally) pour oil on the fires.

I have seen at first hand the impact of Saudi money in the five years I have been living in Indonesia – the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. There are unconfirmed reports that Indonesian women are paid monthly to wear the Jilbabs (as the Hijab or the head scarf is called) and the number of women sporting Hijab has grown rapidly in recent years.

Where there was one mosque per Kampung (village) there are now 3 or 4 competing in ever higher decibels with Salafist trained, Saudi-returned Imams. The result is of increasing piety: violence against other Muslim groups. Luckily, this country has a deep rooted peaceful and easy going culture predating Islam. But the poison is certainly spreading.

Until recently, Indonesia has been famously relaxed about its religion. But slowly Indonesians are becoming more devout and in the battle for the soul of Islam here the Saudis are playing an important though stealthy role, Indonesian scholars say.

The Saudi money has come in two forms, Indonesian and Western officials said: above-board funds for religious and educational purposes, and quietly disbursed funds for militant Islamic groups. The Saudi money has had a profound effect on extremist groups, allowing some to keep going and inspiring others to start recruiting, the officials said.

Kris wrote: The best the west can do is protect itself.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>US disengagement from SA will put a dent and maybe a big one as far as SA goes, but it won't solve the problem of the sponsorship of wahabbism., for two reasons. A politically weak rulership will in fact step up the relationship with the clergy to consolidate power, wahbbism is a genie out of the bottle already. Finally,demand from other countries is not going away. The best the west can do is protect itself.

Isn't the US called a leader, when it comes to mindless wars, indiscreet bombings? If, Wahbbism is a genie out of the bottle already, isn't this the time for the US to lead & increase pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop sponsoring billions of dollars to promote an extremely violent version of Islam?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote: The best the west can do is protect itself.

and why do you think pressurizing the saudis to turn off the $ spigot is part of the "protecting itself" strategy?

Saudi ruler, the late King Fahd, spent millions of dollars recruiting students to more than 1,500 mosques, 210 Muslim centers, 202 Islamic colleges, and 2,000 madrassas and on staffing those institutions with nearly 4,000 preachers and missionaries in non-Muslim nations in central, southern, and southeast Asia, as well as in Africa, Europe, and North America. Adherents to Wahhabism used Saudi control of four-fifths of all Islamic publishing houses around the world to spread their fighting words into faraway places.

Indeed, 80 percent of the 1,200 mosques operating in the US were constructed after 2001, more often than not with Saudi financing. As a result, Wahhabi influence over Islamic institutions in the US was considerable by 2003, according to testimony before the US Senate. Hundreds of publications, published by the Saudi government and its affiliates, and filled with intolerance toward Christians, Jews, and other Americans, had been disseminated across the country by 2006, according to a report by Freedom House, a Washington-based NGO. That report concluded that “the Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence.” By 2013, 75 percent of North American Islamic centers relied on Wahhabi preachers who promote anti-Western ideas in person and online through their sermons and through the Saudi-produced literature.

Since 2011, between 100 and 150 new mosques are at various stages of planning and construction across France. The Muslim Council of France claims that less assistance for such expansion comes from “foreign organizations,” but US government sources suspect that much of the funding is actually funneled from Saudi sources through difficult-to-track chains of bank accounts and person-to-person cash transfers. In Bosnia, too, Saudi financing has been central since the end of the civil war, in 1995, for construction of new mosques and cultural centers, such as the King Fahd Mosque in Sarajevo. Saudi and Qatari Wahhabi charities controlled  60 percent of mosques in Italy by 2009. In Kazakhstan, the Mecca-based Muslim World League, long associated with disseminating Wahhabism, is funding construction of mosques. The intelligence service of India estimates more than $244 million has been spent by Saudi Wahhabis during the past decade to set up 40 new mosques and four new madrassas and take over hundreds of others across the subcontinent, from Kashmir in the north to Maharashtra in the west and Kerala in the south.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

Max,

It is always amusing to see you twisting your underwear in knots to somehow turn this problem (what ever this problem is) into a criticism of right wing lunatics on such forum. But i would also like to know which of the right wingers of such are on saudi pay roll?  which of them are stopping obama doing the noble acts requested by us citizen liberals like you?

One more question?  Please also help us understand which poster on such is worried about an attack on US soil by an Indian muslim jihadi?

Would you consider criticism of indian jihadis for their nefarious activities in India as an acceptable activity for posters on such?  

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

Max,

It is always amusing to see you twisting your underwear in knots to somehow turn this problem (what ever this problem is) into a criticism of right wing lunatics on such forum. But i would also like to know which of the right wingers of such are on saudi pay roll?  which of them are stopping obama doing the noble acts requested by us citizen liberals like you?

One more question?  Please also help us understand which poster on such is worried about an attack on US soil by an Indian muslim jihadi?

Would you consider criticism of indian jihadis for their nefarious activities in India as an acceptable activity for posters on such?  

i don't remember mentioning the term right wing anywhere in this thread. all US administrations, republican and democratic are guilty of propping up the saudi regime which poisons the world by abetting wahabbism.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since most of you won't bother clicking the article because it raises difficult questions for you here are some excerpts:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

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.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

since the majority of people on this board who are worried about radical islam and terrorism are american citizens, why won't you petition  your president, your congressmen, and senators to stop doing business with the chief sponsor of islamic terrorism, saudi arabia? why do you instead focus so much of your energy and time on indian muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism in the spaces you inhabit in the west -- in america and europe?  i've never been able to get a convincing answer to this question in the many years i've been at sulekha and here.

Max,

It is always amusing to see you twisting your underwear in knots to somehow turn this problem (what ever this problem is) into a criticism of right wing lunatics on such forum. But i would also like to know which of the right wingers of such are on saudi pay roll?  which of them are stopping obama doing the noble acts requested by us citizen liberals like you?

One more question?  Please also help us understand which poster on such is worried about an attack on US soil by an Indian muslim jihadi?

Would you consider criticism of indian jihadis for their nefarious activities in India as an acceptable activity for posters on such?  

i don't remember mentioning the term right wing anywhere in this thread. all US administrations, republican and democratic are guilty of propping up the saudi regime which poisons the world by abetting wahabbism.

and all this pretzelling by people on this thread to a simple invitation to take a stance against the saudi government baffles me. if you can't do that and the first thing you worry about is the effect on gasoline prices (and even that may not be as severe as the folks here especially kris imagine), then the only conclusion i can draw is that the folks who obsess about islamic terrorism on this board are not really all that worried. and i'm already anticipating kris's argument that this won't have much of an effect. how does he know that? there are no clear estimates of where ISIS's financial muscle is coming from. i say apply occam's razor -- saudi arabia is a known abettor of wahabbism; they have a lot to gain by fomenting terror against shias in the region -- syria, iraqi shias etc. ergo, it's a reasonable assumption to assume that a good portion of ISIS's funding is coming directly or indirectly from saudi sources. so why not support a move to pressurize the saudi arabian government to turn off the spigot?

truthbetold wrote:Max,

Saudi wahabism and ISIS's brand of extreme islam are close cousins. However their individual desires for power makes them competitors for the desert riches. If west desires to use the differences between them  it is not a mistake. But hoping Saudi would be of any significant help is stupidity of highest order.

Almost all non muslim Indian americans i talked to consider saudi wahabism as one of the fundamental sources of islamic jehadi movement.  Only support to saudis among indian american comes from the isolated group of merlot sipping pseudo seculars.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Max,

Saudi wahabism and ISIS's brand of extreme islam are close cousins. However their individual desires for power makes them competitors for the desert riches. If west desires to use the differences between them  it is not a mistake. But hoping Saudi would be of any significant help is stupidity of highest order.

Almost all non muslim Indian americans i talked to consider saudi wahabism as one of the fundamental sources of islamic jehadi movement.  Only support to saudis among indian american comes from the isolated group of merlot sipping pseudo seculars.

Haha..ya, and they whispered this into your ears last evening.