West Asia News and Discussions (YEMEN, gulf)

[Singha]

turkey has a base in qatar albeit just some 200 trainers . remains to be seen if they are sending more. nearest is the training base in bashiqa north of mosul, but air option is available.

CCTV of iran parliament attack. you can clearly see one poor man in white shirt who had laid down on floor, shot in back from close range as the jackal with the pistol walks past. he must have died or his spine & lungs surely got shattered.

https://twitter.com/IranNewspaper/statu ... 1535494144

[Bhurishravas]

The turkish soldiers are landing in Qatar because Turkey signed a deal with Qatar to set up base there earlier this year. Nothing to do with current spat.

Saudi or Iran should be equal to us. I dont quite remember Saudi bombing an Israeli ambassador in New Delhi. Besides, I doubt Saudi is speading Wahaabi ideology after 9/11. Qatar is. It was Qatar sending tonnes of equipment to Syria,supporting muslim brotherhood, Hamas etc. Iran has not given us any preferential treatment over any other country in allocation of gas reserves found by us. It does not allow any explosives to be transferred through chabahar port to Afghanistan, even if it is for construction of Salma dam, considering sensitivities of Pukistan. The Saudi and Emirati leaders have been trying to cultivate ties withIndia. king salman has called Modi twice and the Emiratis have visted us and Modi has visited them.

Thirdly, Its suprising to see Russia-Turkey relations getting dragged into this. Turkey is a member of NATO and there is little bonhomie between Ankara and Moscow unless, you have stopped following news since the Erdogan-Putin foolish love fest a year ago.

Fourthly, it is UAE that offered to fill up India`s atrategic oil reserves and not Qatar imho.
http://in.reuters.com/article/india-emi ... NKBN1590RM

[Philip]

The Russo-Iranian relation indirectly will benefit Qatar,more than that of Turkey,which has issues with NATO/EU,etc. We get a huge amt. of gas from Qatar daily (India to save Rs 20k crore from new gas import deal with Qatar: PM Modi
http://www.business-standard.com),so the relationship is v.important to us as much as it is with the other Gulfie nations.

The Saudis have been the principal global sponsor of Islamic terror and Wahaabi ideology since 9/11. Both the US and UK have kept the Saudi terror conenctions secret becuse of their huge defence deals. The Min. for religion in the KSA is always from the Wahaabi family.Wahaab's daughter married the king's son in the early days of the monarchy,why Wahhaabism is entrenched in Saudi royals.They've been playing the game of duplicity with finesse for years. The West allows an amt. of terrorism to take place preferably in non-western countries,in order that the huge defence and energy deals keep happening.

[ldev]

I doubt Saudi is speading Wahaabi ideology after 9/11. Qatar is. It was Qatar sending tonnes of equipment to Syria,supporting muslim brotherhood, Hamas etc

Qatar's funding is going to MB, Hamas who are active in the Middle East and hence a problem for KSA, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain etc.

Saudi funding is going to mosques and preachers globally. So KSA wants to crack down on Qatar because it's a problem for them in the region but it's own funding for mosques all over the world spreading it's Wahhabi ideology continues unchecked even after 9/11. Trump has been taken in by the KSA position but what about the spread of Wahhabi ideology to radicalize Muslim immigrants all over the world.

[Singha]

Numerous so called misguided indian youth got radicalized in the labour camps of saudi and dubai. Apart from local preachers it seems isi recruiters and pak tabliqs also get their run there.

[IndraD]

Israel while not in picture is the elephant in the room: if Saudi and others are concerned about Hamas (which is another Sunni Militia) controlling Gaza strip it is due to Saudi-Israel bonhomie (hence US-KSA-Israel).
Why is Qatar interested in spiking Israel and supporting Hamas only they know! Indeed top leaders of both hamas & MB stay in Doha.
btw where is this discussion coming from that ksa has stopped funding terrorism? Can poster please provide reference to this?

[Singha]

Just another wild stmt by bhurishravasji. Completely wrong ...the truth is out no matter shrill denials

Here is just one small example of saudi activity

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/swarajya ... tas-bengal

they dont need to send weapons or semtex, just the highly portable ideology .... easy to do via whatsapp , youtube etc. they have also sent their radical clerics as roving ambassadors of goodwill like muhaysini to syrian nusra front.

[UlanBatori]

The turkish soldiers are landing in Qatar because Turkey signed a deal with Qatar to set up base there earlier this year. Nothing to do with current spat.

If that were true, why was it necessary for Edrogan to arm-twist his "Parliament" into emergency approval of troop deployment to Qatar? Tentative approval may or may not have been given earlier as they saw this coming, but Parliament approval came 2 dins ago, IIRC.

[VishalJ]

Checkout the hot fiery arab chick

[UlanBatori]

One explanation for current bonhomie is that Sona Bandar made deal: if u want oil prices to rise w/o Ras Tanura and Riyadh burning, well.... stop funding terror. Maybe got undies in a knot. But Qatar says boo because Erdogan and Iran are OK with saying boo to SoBu.

[Singha]

half italian half israeli with 11k instagram followers
https://www.instagram.com/rulajebreal/?hl=en

[Karthik S]

Has 24 hour deadline passed or not.

[UlanBatori]

Next 24 hours has started...

[Bhurishravas]

I dont quite remember Saudi bombing an Israeli ambassador in New Delhi. Besides, I doubt Saudi is speading Wahaabi ideology after 9/11.

I am sure there are individuals supporting wahabi ideology in and from Saudi. I doubt Saudi Arabia as a state is spreading wahabi ideology like we saw when US and Saudi Arabia were giving money to the `Afghan Mujahidden`.
I also doubt that Saudi Arabia is as deeply involved in funding jihadi fighters in Syria or Libya like Qatar is. The Turkey-Qatar relationship has gotten stronger imho as a result of the islamist policies of the two states.
The house of Saud has its self-preservation as its top priority. The foaming at the mouth jihadis are looking to create a khilafat. Also, it is the shia protests inside Saudi, Bahrain etc that has made the GCC kings nervous. And that is why this strong reaction against Iran, Yemen, Hezbollah etc.

[Singha]

looks like head of state of qatar is on twitter

Verified account @TamemAlthani 16h16 hours ago
This is #QATAR

[Singha]

https://twitter.com/TamemAlthani?lang=en

[ArjunPandit]

I dont quite remember Saudi bombing an Israeli ambassador in New Delhi. Besides, I doubt Saudi is speading Wahaabi ideology after 9/11.

It was iranians that did it in 2012, wiki has this entry

[Bhurishravas]

Also, isnt Muhaysini blasting the Saudi Monarchy from Syria?
Apart from organising his fund raising programmes in Qatar. All the more reason for Saudi Arabis to act against terrorist supporter Qatar.

[Philip]

I am sure there are individuals supporting wahabi ideology in and from Saudi. I doubt Saudi Arabia as a state is spreading wahabi ideology like we saw when US and Saudi Arabia were giving money to the `Afghan Mujahidden`.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the ... 05db4da8aa

The Real Largest State Sponsor Of Terrorism
03/16/2017 05:12 pm ET

MARK WILSON
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in the Oval Office at the White House, March 14, 2017.

Saudi Arabia—not Iran—is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today and Wahhabism remains the source of most radical Islamic extremism. For years Iran has borne the unenviable title of “world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism.” However, out of the 61 groups that are designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department, the overwhelming majority are Wahhabi-inspired and Saudi-funded groups, with a focus on the West and Iran as their primary enemy. Only two are Shi’a—Hezbollah and Kataib Hezbollah, and only four have ever claimed to receive support from Iran. Nearly all of the Sunni militant groups listed receive significant support from either the Saudi government or Saudi citizens.

The Great Compromise

Wahhabism is an ideology of compromise between the ambitions of the zealot and the needs of the ruler. Wahhabism can be thought of as a religio-political subcategory of the Salafi approach to Islam. Salafis get their name from the al-salaf al-salih or “pious companions” of Muhammad whose practices they claim to imitate. What distinguishes Wahhabism from Salafism is that the former is dependent on the House of Saud for its power whereas the latter is a phenomenon that exists globally.

The 18th century partnership of tribal leader Ibn Saud and cleric Abd al-Wahhab wedded two parallel sources of legitimacy in Arabia—religion and tribal kinship. The clerics known as ulema received their authority from God and then conferred it upon the Saud clan themselves. In exchange the ulema are protected from the risks that come with governance. Wahhabis must be distinguished from jihadi Salafis because Wahhabism is inextricably linked to the Saudi state and therefore not revolutionary in nature. The Royal family walks a tightrope between the liberalization necessary for economic development and strong political ties with the West, and the more conservative demands of the Wahhabi movement. One such demand is to turn a blind eye to the sponsorship and export of terrorism and jihad in South Asia, the Middle East, and even the West.

Exporting Jihad And Buying Friends

Some contend that Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia are being used as scapegoats when in fact the real causes of Islamist terrorism are far more complex. Mohammed Alyahya made just this argument in his New York Times article “Don’t Blame ‘Wahhabism’ for Terrorism.” The crux of the argument is that “most Islamist militants have nothing to do with Saudi Wahhabism.” For example, he asserts that the Taliban are Deobandis which is “a revivalist, anti-imperialist strain of Islam that emerged as a reaction to British colonialism in South Asia” and al Qaeda “follow a radical current that emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood.” While a nuanced understanding of the causes of terrorism is important, it must not lead policymakers to ignore an obvious source.

It is certainly true that not all Sunni extremist movements find their roots in Wahhabism. Al Qaeda was inspired by the anti-state Islamist literature of Muslim Brothers like Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. But organizations and movements evolve. The al Qaeda we know today is very much a product of the more extreme elements of the Wahhabi movement that is tolerated and promoted by Riyadh. However, it is Pakistan rather than the Arab world, which is the true ground zero of Saudi Arabia’s export of extremism. An invasive strain of Saudi-sponsored Salafism, often referred to as the Ahl-e-Hadith movement, has spread throughout Pakistan, all the while the fundamentalist Deobandi movement is increasingly supported by Gulf donors. According to a U.S. government cable, “financial support estimated at nearly 100 million USD annually was making its way to Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith clerics in the region from ‘missionary’ and ‘Islamic charitable’ organizations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ostensibly with the direct support of those governments.” This fusion of Salafism and Deobandism occurs at the expense of indigenous South Asian interpretations of Islam like the Sufi-oriented Barelvis.

The close relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan began as early as the administration of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. According to a recently available CIA report, in 1975, Bhutto “obtained assurances of generous aid from Saudi Arabia” during a state visit. In exchange for such support Pakistan “furnished military technicians and advisers to the armed forces of Saudi Arabia.” Other CIA documents reveal that during Zia ul-Haq’s military dictatorship, Pakistan viewed the Soviet presence in Afghanistan beginning in 1979 as an existential threat. So Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency was more than enthusiastic to train Pashtun mujahideen to fight the Soviets with Saudi and U.S. assistance.

Saudi officials naturally garnered greater respect from Pakistani officers than their American counterparts due to the revered status of the Kingdom as caretaker of the two holiest sites in Islam. The U.S. also underestimated the extent to which Pakistani officers would develop sympathies for the militants they spent years training. The ISI became an intermediary between Saudi Arabia and militant Islamic groups across South Asia. During the 1990s, the ISI shifted its focus towards Kashmir and the Punjab in an effort to counter perceived Indian aggression. But the deep connections fostered between the ISI and various militants resurfaced after 9/11 when their focus pivoted back to Afghanistan.

Meanwhile the ISI fought some militant groups while allowing others like the Haqqani Network to remain powerful. When Osama bin Laden was discovered in Pakistan, the U.S. ramped up drone strikes against safe havens, and the ISI retaliated by releasing the name of the CIA’s Islamabad bureau chief which resulted in numerous death threats. Since 9/11, Gulf dollars have continued to bolster extremist groups inside Pakistan even as Pakistani civilians die by the thousands from suicide operations linked to Saudi-sponsored madrasas.

In exchange for tolerating Gulf-sponsored terrorism Pakistani leaders get security. While in power they have an unofficial army of militants they can call upon to deal with anything from Baluchi separatists to keeping India on its toes. Once they leave power they have an escape hatch to protect them and their family. When Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was found guilty of corruption, kidnapping, and hijacking, in the summer of 2000, Saudi Arabia accepted him to live in exile. Benazir Bhutto’s notoriously corrupt widow and ex-president, Asif Zardari, went on a “self-imposed exile” to the U.A.E. throughout 2016. And the former president and general, Pervez Musharraf, is currently hiding out in Dubai to avoid prosecution for treason charges.

But the export of extremism from Saudi Arabia is not always by design. In his history of Pakistan, Ian Talbot argued that “the exposure of the lower-class Pakistanis to the Islamic heartland further encouraged a mindset favourable to Islamization, although Zia was to find that its impact on sectarianism was to prove unpredictable and potentially destabilizing.” Saudi Arabia fears the effects of its own radicalization and recently deported 40,000 Pakistani workers over concerns of terrorism. Today South Asia is rocked by sectarian violence from the mountainous peaks of Kabul to the tropical markets of Karachi and posh hotels of Mumbai. This February, suicide attacks killed hundreds across Pakistan. The province of Sindh begged the central government to shut down Gulf-funded seminaries. Islamabad declined.

Controlling The Message

The internet age rendered in-person missionary work by Saudi clerics less relevant. The radical messages of Saudi preachers and their protégés can be viewed on mobile phones across the world. Students filter into the seminaries in Mecca and Medina and return to teach at the hundreds of madrasas spread across the world. These representatives of the Kingdom do not always preach a militant message. Sometimes, and perhaps more dangerously, they preach an apologist one.

In 2008, popular Indian televangelist Zakir Naik called 9/11 an “inside job” done by the Bush administration to defame Islam. He also commented that “If he [Osama bin Laden] is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him.” Despite these comments Naik went on to win the King Faisal International Prize for his “service to Islam.” The conspiracy theories he peddles are crucial to Saudi Arabia’s standing among the Muslim masses that are not necessarily prone to violence. However, conspiracy theories that brush aside the problem of extremism within the Kingdom are nothing new. Rumors about U.S. involvement in the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca led to an attack on the U.S. embassy in Islamabad in 1979 resulting in the death of two U.S. citizens.

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia spends millions on public relations firms in Washington D.C. every year in order to ensure it is not viewed as a state sponsor—or even enabler—of terrorism. The Kingdom attempts to contain the effects of its own hate preachers by campaigning to distance itself from the most egregious acts of terrorism in the Muslim world while still embracing a Salafi message. All the while in D.C. the Kingdom scrambles to disassociate itself not only from terrorism but from extremism altogether.

A Complicated Relationship

Australian Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull once asked President Obama “aren’t the Saudis your friends?” Obama famously replied “it’s complicated.” It is complicated. How can Saudi Arabia possibly serve as an effective partner against terror when its internal security is dependent on the continued export of terrorism? The answer is that for both Saudi Arabia and the U.S. the other has always been the perceived lesser of two evils.

In the early 1930s when U.S. companies first began to explore the Saudi oil market they were favored by the Royal family over the British who were viewed as imperialists disguised as businessmen. This enemy-of-my-enemy partnership grew closer during the Cold War and the goal to contain the Soviets was described as the “complementary foreign policy” of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in a 1983 CIA memorandum. The fact that Saudi Arabia promoted a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in order to counter the Soviet Union did not alarm the U.S. intelligence community. Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution in Iran cemented Saudi Arabia’s position as the lesser of two perceived evils.

When the Gulf War incited harsh criticism of the Royal family for hosting non-Muslim soldiers they responded by coopting the majority of Wahhabi scholars into official government positions. Those who were too extreme for government work were encouraged to go abroad. The “28 pages” report detailing connections between the Saudi government and 9/11 hijackers proved once and for all that it wasn’t only private Saudi citizens who provide financing and manpower to radical terrorist organizations but the government itself. But Saudi Arabia claims it too is in a fight against radical extremism. Yet the majority of terrorist attacks in the Kingdom remain directed at the Shi‘a minority in the Eastern Province and Western targets. In fact, the U.S. State Department website explicitly warns citizens in Saudi Arabia to avoid “places where members of the Shia-Muslim minority gather.”

Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad recently wrote in Politico that the Saudis claim to have adopted a new “policy of honesty” and admitted to him that in the past they had funded extremists. However, partial confessions and lukewarm commitments to fight terrorism are a pillar of Saudi diplomacy. After 9/11, the Saudi government made some effort to share intelligence and set up rehabilitation facilities for low-risk terrorists. But this was largely a show of good will that produced few long-term gains in the war on terrorism. The infamous “Podesta emails” confirm that the U.S. intelligence community believes Saudi Arabia and Qatar are now “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL.” The export of fanaticism and terrorism is a necessary release valve so that the fragile equilibrium of Saudi society does not implode.

One Terrorism Policy

When the late Taliban commander, Mullah Mansoor, was killed in May of last year, it was his recent trip to Iran that became the focal point of discussion. For years, however, Washington all but ignored that the vast majority of the ammonium nitrate used to construct IEDs that delimb American soldiers in Afghanistan comes from Pakistan. In 2007, at the height of the war in Iraq, the U.S. military estimated that 45% of all foreign terrorists targeting U.S. troops were Saudi. Now the debate in Washington is whether to designate Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as terrorist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood has rarely engaged in terrorism and the IRGC’s main focus appears to be Iranian dissidents abroad and fighting ISIS in Syria. Meanwhile the metastasization of Gulf-sponsored terrorist networks continues unabated. Counterterrorism policy has been reduced to a popularity contest rather than an assessment of real threats.

The U.S. must stop treating implicit and explicit state sponsors of terrorism differently. Saudi Arabia’s compartmentalized efforts at containing rather than eradicating extremism should not be lauded as a genuine partnership. States that clandestinely sponsor terrorism, albeit sloppily, must be held to the same standards as those that openly provide support. Counterterrorism strategists must adopt a long-horizon approach and recognize that state sponsors of terrorist groups are responsible for the consequences even when those organizations inevitably go rogue and turn on their benefactor. And just as Pakistan paid a heavy price for tolerating Saudi support for Wahhabi terror, the U.S. and the West are starting to feel the brunt of their own negligence of Riyadh and Doha’s love affair with terrorists.

Indeed, the very phrase “biggest state sponsor of terrorism” is best removed from diplomatic vocabulary altogether because so long as it shines the spotlight on only one country, others will hide in its shadow.

Adam Weinstein is a veteran of the Marine Corps, where he served in Afghanistan, and a policy research intern at the National Iranian American Council. He tweets at @AdamNoahWho.

[Singha]

it was not the ambassador who is heavily protected but a embassy staffer, a lady I believe who was going to school to fetch her son.

since then, israeli consulate in delhi is one of the few if any who dont use the distinctive blue "CD" coveted plates or fancy imported cars but probably use regular looking unmarked vehicles albeit must be well protected.

[Philip]

https://www.newsbud.com/2017/04/30/saud ... -not-iran/

Saudi Arabia is the Top Sponsor of Terrorism, Not Iran
KURT NIMMO | APRIL 30, 2017

In March, during a meeting between President Trump and Saudi Arabia's Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a senior advisor to the prince said the United States and Saudi Arabia have reached a "historical turning point" in relations. The Saudis are encouraged by Trump’s hardline on Iran.
"The meeting today restored issues to their right path and form a big change in relations between both countries in political, military, security and economic issues," the senior advisor said in a statement.
The Saudis were further encouraged on April 19 when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the Trump administration was in the process of reviewing the lifting of sanctions against Iran. Tillerson denounced the country as a sponsor of terrorism.
"Everywhere you look, if there's trouble in the region, you find Iran," James “Mad Dog” Mattis, Trump’s Secretary of Defense, told reporters. "Right now, what we're seeing is the nations in the region and others elsewhere trying to checkmate Iran, and the amount of disruption and the amount of instability they can cause."
The Trump administration has ignored the role played by Saudi Arabia in creating “trouble in the region,” trouble that overshadows anything purportedly created by Iran.

Omitted from any official discussion is the Saudi role in creating Islamic terror. The effort began in earnest in 1973 when the price of oil skyrocketed. Between 1972 and 1978 the price of oil per barrel rose $9.02, from $3.50 a barrel to $12.52. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates began to put their windfall to use by funding Wahhabi projects around the world.
In 2003 the Center for Security Policy (CSP) calculated that between 1975 and 2002 the Saudi government spent over $70 billion on international aid. Nearly all the money went to Islamic related projects such as building Wahhabi mosques and religious schools. CSP scholar Alex Alexiev characterized the effort as “the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted” in the history of the world. Saudi charities, including the Muslim World League and its affiliate, the International Islamic Relief Organization, were headed up by Saudi government officials and funded in large part by private Saudi citizens.
“Accompanying the money, invariably, was a blizzard of Wahhabist literature,” US News and World Report noted in 2003. “Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme preachings—mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as apostates, and emphasis on violent jihad—laid the groundwork for terrorist groups around the world.”

The massive funding effort represents “a monumental campaign to bulldoze the more moderate strains of Islam, and replace them with the theo-fascist Saudi variety. Despite being well aware of the issue, Western powers continue to coddle the Saudis or, at most, protest meekly from time to time,” writes Yousaf Butt.
An official US diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks reveals the US government is well aware of the Saudi effort to spread the influence of militant Wahhabism far and wide. In a cable dated December 30, 2009 then secretary of state Hillary Clinton wrote “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide… More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups.”

The Saudis participated in the effort to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and were instrumental in the creation of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Saudi Arabia worked closely with Pakistan to fund and support the Afghan Mujahideen. The Saudis provided hundreds of millions of dollars per year, totaling ultimately well over a billion dollars. The Saudi Osama bin Laden worked closely with both the CIA and private Saudi citizens to fund the operation in Afghanistan. By 1984, he was running the Maktab al-Khidamar, an organization set up by the Pakistani intelligence to funnel "money, arms, and fighters from the outside world in the Afghan war."
“Over the past 10 years, the ‘Afghani’ network has been linked to terrorist attacks not only on U.S. targets, but also in the Philippines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, France, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and elsewhere,” Phil Gasper wrote in 2001.
Nearly 500,000 people died between 1989 and 2001 as a direct result of the manufactured conflict in Afghanistan that led to the rise of the Taliban, students of Saudi financed schools or madrassas in Pakistan. According to journalist and best-selling author Ahmed Rashid, "between 1994 and 1999, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistanis trained and fought in Afghanistan" on the side of the Taliban. During that period many young Afghan women were kidnapped and sold to Arab and Pakistani men.

If not for the British and French, Saudi Arabia in its present form would not exist. Britain exploited the pan-Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War and created protectorates where the spread of Sunni Islam was encouraged. In 1914, the British government told Hussein bin Ali, then the ruler of the holy city of Mecca, “Till now we have defended and befriended Islam in the person of the Turks: henceforward it shall be in that of the noble Arab.”

The British used the strategy of divide and rule to prevent Arabs from coming together to oppose colonial rule. Colonel T.E. Lawrence “of Arabia” wrote after the war the “Sherif [Hussein] was ultimately chosen because of the rift he would create in Islam” and added that the “greatest obstacle, from a war standpoint, to any Arab movement, was its greatest virtue in peace-time—the lack of solidarity between the various Arab movements.”
By 1919 Ibn Saud defeated Hussein and became the preferred client for the British. The Palestinian journalist Said Aburish describes Ibn Saud as “a lecher and a bloodthirsty autocrat… whose savagery wreaked havoc across Arabia.” The conquest of what soon became Saudi Arabia cost 400,000 lives (Ibn Saud did not take prisoners) and over a million people fled to neighboring countries.

British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill “described Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis as akin to the present-day Taliban, telling the House of Commons in July 1921 that they were ‘austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty’ and that ‘they hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offense to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette,’” writes Mark Curtis, author of Secret Affairs:

Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam.
British exploitation of Arabia and its bounty of oil was challenged with the rise of Arab nationalism, particularly after a coup led by Egyptian military officers and the leadership of Gamal Abd-al Nasser in 1954. "In the 1950s and later, the West opposed the secular Arab nationalist movement for two reasons: it challenged its regional hegemony and threatened the survival of its clients leaders and countries,” writes Aburish.
This threat led to British intelligence and later the CIA efforts to further exploit militant Islamic movements—specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood.
"According to CIA agent Miles Copeland, the Americans began looking for a Muslim Billy Graham around 1955,” writes Aburish. “When finding or creating a Muslim Billy Graham proved elusive, the CIA began to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim mass organization founded in Egypt but with followers throughout the Arab Middle East... This signaled the beginning of an alliance between the traditional regimes and mass Islamic movements against Nasser and other secular forces."

Saudi Arabia teamed up with the United States to undermine Nasser and Arab nationalism. They offered financial backing and sanctuary to Muslim Brotherhood militants during Nasser’s crackdown on the movement. The Saudis were instrumental in the creation of the Brotherhood. Said Ramadan, one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top leaders, and also the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was assisted by Saudi Arabia. Together they formed the Muslim World League in 1962. There is strong evidence that Ramadan was a long-time CIA asset.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, and the CIA were responsible for organizing the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. After the Soviets left Afghanistan in defeat, the Brotherhood and its Saudi benefactors established a number of supposed charities to spread the Wahhabi cause. For instance, according to Richard Labeviere (Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam), Mercy International, a “subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood, was able to establish its headquarters in the United States, in the state of Michigan, with the assistance of the CIA. The Agency provided significant logistical and financial support to this ‘humanitarian’ organization, enabling it to act clandestinely in the various Balkan conflicts as well as within the Muslim communities of several Russian republics.” Mercy International was later tied to al-Qaeda.

In the early 1990s, the Saudi government initiated payments to al-Qaeda and by 1996 it became the largest financial backer of the terrorist group. Additionally, the Saudis were spending a fortune to finance other Salafist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the al-Nusra Front. LeT carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks and used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities.
In 2015, the journalist Patrick Cockburn reported on Saudi support for jihadi groups. "In Syria, in early 2015, it supported the creation of the Army of Conquest, primarily made up of the al-Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham, which won a series of victories against the Syrian Army in Idlib province."

There is a wealth of evidence Saudi Arabia and Qatar provide clandestine financial and logistic support to the Islamic State. An email sent by Hillary Clinton to John Podesta on September 27, 2014, makes this abundantly clear.
“…[W]e need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” the email, released in a WikiLeaks trove, explains.

In July 2016, the British Parliament asked Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries to stop bankrolling the Islamic State. "When someone close to the top echelons of the royal family is a very wealthy donor and supporter of (ISIS), the continuation of financial aids are very likely,” lawmaker Tobias Ellwood said.

The fact Saudi Arabia is a top sponsor of Islamic terror has yet to register with the Trump administration. In March, President Trump met with a member of the Saudi royal family, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It was billed as “a historic turning point” in bilateral relations between the two nations.
In a statement released during the meeting, the White House said Trump and the prince “directed their teams to explore additional steps across a broad range of political, military, security, economic, cultural, and social dimensions to further strengthen and elevate the United States-Saudi strategic relationship” and to confront “Iran’s destabilizing regional activities.”
We are currently witnessing the full dimension of this cooperation in Yemen. On April 19, the Trump administration announced it will step up support for the brutal war in Yemen that has thus far claimed at least 10,000 lives and displaced around 3 million people. Trump made the announcement after he bombed the Shayrat airfield in Syria and dropped the “mother of all bombs” in Afghanistan.
Obama made a half-baked parting gesture when he moved to halt a planned arms sale to beef up Saudi Arabia’s arsenal depleted during attacks on the Houthis in Yemen.
Rex Tillerson’s State Department, however, moved quickly in March to reverse the decision and resume arms sales.

PS:There is little point in trying to "defend the indefensible"

[Bhurishravas]

Well, It is certainly not Iran which is the sponsor of biggest terrorism. Perhaps it is not even Saudi Arabia but Malsi itself. I dont see any reason for us to choose Iranian head choppers over saudi head choppers. That was the point. And I am not defending anything.
For some unknown reason, people believe Americans when they want to and not at other times. I see absolutely no logic in Saudi Arabia supporting ISIS or Al Qaeda which has regularly been stating the destruction of Saudi Monacrhy as its goal.

[ArjunPandit]

Perhaps it is not even Saudi Arabia but Malsi itself. I dont see any reason for us to choose Iranian head choppers over saudi head choppers.

Good taliban and bad taliban problem, like the p=np problem

For some unknown reason, people believe Americans when they want to and not at other times. I see absolutely no logic in Saudi Arabia supporting ISIS or Al Qaeda which has regularly been stating the destruction of Saudi Monacrhy as its goal.

Americans control most of media houses, CTs also point saudi/Gulf money in the ownership of all these news biggies

We need to focus on our citizens and remittances first before anythign else

[ramana]

Folks please stick to the topic which is West Asia News and Discussions.
its not helpful when we snipe at each other about which terrorist supporter is needed by India!!!

Thanks, ramana

[IndraD]

error deleted

[Falijee]

Saudi Arabia 101 For POTUS Trump !

Saudis' snub to London victims

Australia defeated the Saudis, 3-2, in a thrilling World Cup qualifying match Thursday in Adelaide but the main talking point came before the first whistle was even blown.While Australia's players locked arms in the center circle to honour the eight victims of last Saturday's attack at London Bridge and Borough Market, their opponents took to their positions.Football Federation Australia released a statement after the match to clarify what happened as the controversy surrounding the story grew.

The FFA revealed that the Saudis had agreed that the minute of silence could be held but that, because the tradition was not in keeping with their culture, they would not actively participate.

"The FFA was further advised by Saudi team officials that this tradition was not in keeping with Saudi culture and they would move to their side of the field and respect our custom whilst taking their own positions on the field." This is all BS. The Saudis are probably miffed off by the defeat . Secondly, these "desert Bedouns" have a superiority complex ( just like their rulers !) and have "no respect for common decency for the dead" . At the same time, there is "no problem" for them embracing the universal shopping and "consumer culture ", which is fast converting their Holy City Of Mecca into a giant shopping mall

Fans were not so forgiving, taking to Twitter to blast the Saudi players for a "clear lack of respect".“I hope FFA call out Saudi Arabia on the clear lack of respect shown prior to KO. Not participating in the minutes silence is disgusting,” one outraged fan wrote following the minutes silence.“The #SaudiArabia team should not have been allowed to play and the game cancelled! This is deplorable,” another wrote.

PS: Probably, the team is made up of very few Saudis . In keeping with "Saudi Check Book Diplomacy" most of the players may have been "purchased" from other countries

[JE Menon]

>>I see absolutely no logic in Saudi Arabia supporting ISIS or Al Qaeda which has regularly been stating the destruction of Saudi Monacrhy as its goal.

A lot of the GCC countries are supporting ISIS and AQ financially in order to do precisely that, to buy them off, i.e to ensure they attack and spread the message everywhere else but in the GCC. You will observe that, considering their location, they have been remarkably free of terrorist violence. There has been some, because there are factions and false-flag operations within terror groups (anybody can claim to be ISIS), which is why there have been some attacks. Plus, the ideology in itself is radicalising, another reason why there have been a few attacks in the kingdom in particular. But, by and large, they have been successful in buying off the ISIS/AQ combine. I don't consider these entities to be fundamentally different myself. Just different flags and t-shirts.

General Note:
BTW, Rex Tillerson has just given a live statement. By any measure, it appears to be a not so camouflaged demand for the Saudis and UAE to back down. ASAP. We are at a critical point people. The next move will decide whether there is armed conflict in this area or not.

[JE Menon]

The basic essentials of Tillerson's statement:

1. Qatar is doing stuff to reduce financing for terrorism, but it can do more.
2. So can others in the region!
3. Saudi, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt need to ease the blockade (that's the word he used), because they can, immediately.
4. This situation is hindering elements of the US war against terrorism from Qatar.
5. The situation is hindering US and other business activities in the region.
6. Elements of a humanitarian crisis are also becoming apparent.

This is in fact a major statement demanding pullback.

The ball now is in Saudi/UAE court. Bahrain, Egypt will follow.

[abhik]

All KSA does is spread wahabi ideology in India, provide all support to the pakis, work against India's interests. Why are we trying to be nice to them. We can get oil from Iran and other latin american countries. Or atleast make a deal with the saudis regarding our interests in return for our neutrality or support.

remittences. There's 3 million of us in KSA and of the 40-50 billion dollars per annum of remittences sent back to India, the lion's share is from KSA.

As per wiki our imports from Saudi is around $20B per year while remittances is around $10B i.e the millions of indians slaving away in that country bring back only half of the money we give the Saudis every year.

[JE Menon]

Abhik, that's just remittances. Trade volume is much higher. It was 150 bn US$ in 2013-2014. You can well imagine the situation after Modi took over.
Of the $150 bn, Saudi of course has the largest share followed by UAE... We export more than we import, and I think that $150 bn figure does not include remittances.

Plus, remember there are hundreds of thousands of Indians there who are not living on slave labour wages - many are very comfortable indeed.

[Gyan]

I think someone at last informed Trump that Qatar is CIA boys and he mistyped Qatar instead of Pakistan in his tweets.

[IndraD]

The basic essentials of Tillerson's statement:
This is in fact a major statement demanding pullback.

The ball now is in Saudi/UAE court. Bahrain, Egypt will follow.

this is U turn from Trump stance:

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump Jun 6
More
During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!

[Karthik S]

Washington Hattı‏ @WasHatti 12m12 minutes ago
Pakistan to send 20K soldiers to Qatar.
Acc to Pakistani local media "decision made under military agreements signed by Pakistan & Turkey"

If this is true, WTH is going on. Pakis turning against SA?

[abhik]

Abhik, that's just remittances. Trade volume is much higher. It was 150 bn US$ in 2013-2014. You can well imagine the situation after Modi took over.
Of the $150 bn, Saudi of course has the largest share followed by UAE... We export more than we import, and I think that $150 bn figure does not include remittances.

Plus, remember there are hundreds of thousands of Indians there who are not living on slave labour wages - many are very comfortable indeed.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, the figures I have quoted are for wiki for the years 2014/15. The export/import figures are for merchandise/materials only, and does not include remittances, services (like IT), FDI etc. And overall we import $100B+ more than we export. Link

My point was that we are not gaining anything financially and definitely not strategic/security wise from our relationship with the Saudis. When we complain about the them propping up pakistan (as one of its 3.5 daddis) and spreading fundamentalism in India, we must realize that the funds for this is coming from our own pockets. We literally paying for our own destruction.

[JE Menon]

Abhik,

The trade figures don't include remittances, which amount to at least over 65,000 crore Rs, and is basically one way. And that's just what is known. More realistically, it is something closer to Rs 100,000 cr.

Also, something seems to be incorrect in the commerce ministry link you've provided. If you look at the UAE stat for exports it is Rs209 cr Rs. Saudi being one-sixth of that, at about 34 bn Rs, does not seem right somehow, unless there is significant re-export from UAE to other gulf states (mainly Saudi) involved which is entirely possible. And as you pointed out, it does not include FDI, IT, etc...

In short, the idea that "we are not gaining anything financially" from Saudi is inaccurate.

[JE Menon]

Meanwhile, in a speech just now, Trump has made an X-turn ... Hilarious.

[UlanBatori]

er... no X or U. Just a $. He just decided that the $21B F-15 sale to Qatar had to go ahead, terror support or not. Since SoKo is dissing the THAAD, maybe a few of those would come in handy too for Qatar.

[abhik]

Abhik,

The trade figures don't include remittances, which amount to at least over 65,000 crore Rs, and is basically one way. And that's just what is known. More realistically, it is something closer to Rs 100,000 cr.

Also, something seems to be incorrect in the commerce ministry link you've provided. If you look at the UAE stat for exports it is Rs209 cr Rs. Saudi being one-sixth of that, at about 34 bn Rs, does not seem right somehow, unless there is significant re-export from UAE to other gulf states (mainly Saudi) involved which is entirely possible. And as you pointed out, it does not include FDI, IT, etc...

In short, the idea that "we are not gaining anything financially" from Saudi is inaccurate.

We are importing $20b (this figure is much lower than previous years because of lower oil prices) and we are exporting $6b + the remittances of $10b (calculating the remittances figure may not be an exact science but this is the figure we have) = $16b i.e a difference of $4b.

The commerce ministry link gives the official numbers. Of our top 20 trading partners we have an actual positive trade balance with only the US and UK; UAE, Singapore and Hong Kong exports are re-exported from their ports.

[Bhurishravas]

Singhaji pointed towards Muhaysini to show how Saudi Arabia is supporting terrorism in Syria. And I was reading his profile and came across these three things.
1. He has conducted many fundraisers in Qatar.
2. He thanked Turkey and Gulf businessmen for the rockets that Nusra fired from Aleppo.
3. He has been criticising Saudi Arabia.

I dont see any reason for him to be lying. Besides, it is consistent with what we already know about ideology and actions. Turkey supports jihadis and provides them arms. Turkey supports Hamas, muslim brotherhood etc. Qatar provided land for fundraisers and supports hamas, Nusra , Muslim Brotherhood etc.
I have not seen any proof forthcoming of SA state funding and arming Nusra/al Qaeda/ISIS etc. I am sure someone can pull out another of my post from the past where I might be saying the exact oposite, but now i doubt that.
I also dont think it is some great altruism that has dawned on Saudi state not to be funding terrorists. IMHO, it is because of the house of Saud`s inherent desire for self-preservation. The house of Saud is guaranteed its riches by - 1. American support 2. People not ganging up against it.
We see these in action everyday. 1. Minor Shia protests makes the Saudi nervous. 2. Saudis are willing to suck up to Americans even if Trump blasts muslims day in and day out.
The other proof Imho lies in turkish action. If Qatar as well as SA was willing to fund Nusra, Erdogan`s poster boys, why would he chose Qatar over SA. Nusra has been designated a terrorist entity by Amreeka. Imho, Saudi was following Amreeki line and not giving money/arms to Nusra despite Erdogan wanting them too, while Qatar, like Erdogan, couldnt care less about Amreeki diktats regarding Muslim terrorists, as is also evident in its support for Muslim brotherhood, hamas etc.

[JE Menon]

Abhik thanks. I was under the impression we had a surplus with Saudi...

Bhurishravas, I don't understand why you quoted me in above. Does not seem like a reply to my point, which is that Saudi supports terrorism just as much, if not more, than a Qatar does. Are you actually saying it doesn't?

If yes, remember it is one of Pakistan's fourfathers