Whither radical Islam? by Borchgrave

Interesting Article. You can get it at UPI site if you want. Does not really provide any conclusions. I guess leaves it upto the reader.


2002 Yearend: Whither radical Islam?
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large
From the International Desk
Published 12/8/2002 9:58 PM

(Analysis)

(Part of UPI’s Special Report reviewing 2002 and previewing 2003)

WASHINGTON (UPI) – In a truly free election in Saudi Arabia with the royal family on the sidelines bereft of the divine right of kings, and Osama Bin Laden as a candidate for prime minister, the world’s most wanted terrorist would win hands down. So spoke, albeit privately, one of the most important non-royals who manages a big chunk of the royal family’s portfolio of financial assets.

Bin Laden, a member of a powerful and rich as Croesus non-royal family, is seen by countless millions of fundamentalist Muslims as the successor of several famous Islamic theologians going back all the way to Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya. Born in 1269 AD, Taymiyya was prolix on jihad (holy war) against transgressors of the word of Allah as conveyed by the Prophet. This contemporary of Dante elevated jihad to the same level as the “five pillars” of Islam – prayer, pilgrimage, alms, faith (No God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet"), and Ramadan.

“The Age of Sacred Terror” is a remarkable new book by two of the Clinton White House’s counter-terrorist directors that delves into the roots of militant Islam and its jihad duties. Anyone who opposes jihad is an enemy of God.

“By asserting that jihad against apostates within the realm of Islam is justified – by turning jihad inward and reforging it into a weapon for use against Muslims as well as infidels — [Taymiyya] planted a seed of revolutionary violence in the heart of Islamic thought,” wrote co-authors Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon.

These two experts argue correctly it was precisely the weapon of jihad that heavily armed Muslim extremists turned to when they invaded and occupied the Grand Mosque in Mecca in November 1979. The House of Saud was momentarily paralyzed; they couldn’t send security forces into the most sacred site in all of Islam with orders to shoot it out with the jihadists in the tunnels around the mosque. The royals turned to the French for help. The tunnels were flooded and high voltage cables dropped into the water. Most of the jihadis drowned or were electrocuted.

Any leader of a Muslim country who does not rule according to a strict interpretation of the sharia (Islamic law) is fair game for jihadis, as jihadi-in-chief Taymiyya ordained. It was Taymiyya’s fatwa (religious decree) in 1303 against Mongol invaders and occupiers that turned the tide against Mongols who had converted to Islam.

If Taymiyya was Osama’s first role model, the second was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, born in 1703 in Arabia, then a remote, neglected part of the Ottoman Empire. He was steeped in the works of Taymiyya that became religious pillars of back-to-basics Wahhabism. Its creed was that “innovation” was a grave sin against Islam. “Takfir” was proclaimed, which meant innovators were to be put to death.

Wahhab, allied with a local sheikh, Muhammad ibn Saud, fought to restore a strict interpretation of the faith. By the time he died in 1792, Wahhabism had conquered most of central Arabia.

The descendants of al-Wahbab and Ibn Saud continued this close alliance of religious zeal and territorial conquest – and forced the rest of the Arabian peninsula into zealous compliance.

Key modern-day literary firebrands on the side of Muslim revolutionary fervor included Abu al-Ala Maududi and Rashid Rida. They linked Islam with the rhetoric of communism and fascism, which is one of the keys to the success of Islamist extremists in the Oct. 10 elections in Pakistan.

A similar fusion occurred in Iran in the late 1970s when the ayatollahs and the underground Tudeh (Communist) party merged their efforts to undermine and overthrow the shah.

On Jan. 26, 1952, the fiery Muslim Brotherhood suddenly exploded on the Cairo scene by burning down some 300 buildings. King Farouk survived six more months until a military coup of “Free Officers,” led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, abolished the monarchy and allowed the king to sail on his yacht into comfortable exile in Monte Carlo.

The chief theoretician of the Muslim Brothers was Sayyid Qutb, who wrote non-stop during his desert imprisonment by Nasser. Hanged in 1965, his books are still bestsellers throughout the Middle East. His manifesto, “Signposts,” merged all the essential elements of revolutionary Islamism.

Qutb’s views of America – derived from his stay in Greeley, Colo., while working on a master’s in education – are widely shared today throughout radical Islam, and presumably derived from his works. Repelled by America’s admiration for Israel, as well as the licentiousness and racism that pervaded the country, he decried American culture as foul and empty.

From Yasser Arafat’s attempt to take over Jordan in September 1970 (dubbed Black September) and overthrow King Hussein, to the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, Sayyid Qutb’s outpourings provided the rationale to kill America’s puppets.

The other branch of militant Islam sprang from anti-colonial sentiment in British-ruled India in mid-19th century. Known as Dar ul-Ulum (Realm of Learning), it took root at Deoband, in Uttar Pradesh. Deobandism, dedicated to the salafi conception of Islam, and Wahhabism are the two wings of Islamist fanaticism that continue to vie for influence in present-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maylasia and Indonesia.

Ninety-nine percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are moderate and see jihad as a self-cleansing process to get back on the path of spiritual excellence. Presidents Mubarak, Musharraf, Ben Ali (Tunisia), Kings Abdullah II of Jordan, Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed VI of Morocco, and other moderate Muslim leaders, all have told this reporter in the past two years that Islamist extremists are no more than 1 percent of their population.

When we reminded Musharraf that 1 percent of 140 million is 1.4 million, he said, “you’re right, but I’d never thought of it that way.” Now he realizes it’s a lot more than 1 percent as politico-religious extremists won the provincial government in the Northwest Frontier Province adjacent to Afghanistan, a share of the Baluchistan government, and 20 percent of the seats in the new national parliament.

One percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million Muslim fanatics who believe America is the Great Satan, fount of all evil, to be attacked and demolished. Whether al Qaida is centralized as it was before 9/11 or decentralized, as it appears to be after Bali and Mombassa, is immaterial. Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. From Sweden (660,000 Muslims out of 5.8 million people) to Switzerland (also 10 percent), Senegal and Somalia in Africa, Sumatra and Singapore in Asia, and South America (especially Brazil and Venezuela), there are Wahhabi and Deobandi mosques. And that’s just the countries beginning with the letter S.

Islamist terrorist groups have plenty of places to hide – from the tri-border area of Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay where camps have been reported, to Colombia (where FARC terrorists have been hiding for 38 years), to Somalia in Africa, to Sumatra in Indonesia, Mindanao in the Philippines, even remote areas of the United States where radical Muslims were located, ostensibly engaged in peaceful pursuits.

Muslims are a majority in 63 countries. Of the 30 conflicts now under way in the world, 28 concern Muslim governments and/or communities. Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, says two-thirds of the world’s political prisoners are held in Muslim countries, which also carry out 80 percent of all executions each year.

Most imams in the thousands of mosques in European countries can preach anti-U.S. and anti-Saudi royal family sermons with impunity. They carefully refrain from attacking the host country because intelligence services are probably listening. In Washington, D.C.'s principal Saudi-administered mosque, the imam gives politics a wide berth. Many diplomats friendly to the United States usually attend Friday prayers. Vehement anti-U.S. tirades, however, are average Friday fare throughout the Muslim world. Imams do pretty much their own thing. Islam has no pope, no pictures of the Prophet, and no simulated portraits of Allah, who is genderless. Hate-mongers among the radical clergy use western freedoms in order to denounce them.

Many of the imams in America’s 2,000-plus principal mosques (for a population of 5 million Muslims) are recently naturalized U.S. citizens who were sent over as missionaries from both Iran and Saudi Arabia.

“We are spreading the good word of our faith in America,” said the imam at the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights (Michigan), who came over from Iran 10 years ago, “just as you send Christian missionaries to sub-Sahara Africa.” He also chided his interlocutor for dismissing his contention that 9/11 was a combined operation by the CIA and Mossad.

Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who is now serving a life sentence in the United States for his part in the World Trade Center truck bombing in 1993, is revered by Muslim radicals the world over.

Vatican sources concede they have been steadily losing ground in Africa to “the Muslim penetration” for the past 30 years.

the remainder of the article from above:


In Pakistan, a friendly allied country at the Musharraf-Bush level, flat-earth clerics who educated the Taliban leaders have refused any reform of the madrassas, the Koranic schools that inculcate the fundamental belief that America and Israel are the new crusaders hell bent on destroying Islam. They proselytize a great apocalyptic war, the War of Armageddon that will end in the Muslim conquest of Rome and all of Europe, and later America too. Some 750,000 young Pakistanis are presently in 11,000 madrassas where they are taught that jihad is the noblest of human endeavors.

.Gen. Hamid Gul, a former Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence chief who hates America with a passion, boasted to UPI that a greater Islamic caliphate was fast approaching, one that would marry the oil riches of Saudi Arabia with the nuclear weapons of Pakistan "which could then deal with America on an equal footing."

In Singapore, long before Gul's prediction, Lee Kuan Yew, known as Asia's Henry Kissinger, told UPI that the "greatest threat facing civilization over the next 10 years was an Islamist bomb and, mark my words, it will travel."

It is hard to escape the conclusion that a U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam and replace him with a pro-American government will be seen throughout radical Islam, and large segments of moderate Islam as well, as yet another defeat that must be avenged with acts of terrorism. As the extremists read history, the defeat of the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna in 1683 triggered a reversal of Islam's fortunes that has continued ever since.

Is Islam, as President Bush keeps repeating, "a faith based upon peace and love and compassion" committed to "morality and learning and tolerance"? Yes and no. Radical Islam is committed to jihad against the United States and Israel, or a war of civilizations between the Judeo-Christian West and the impoverished Muslim world. The Wahhabis and Deobandis hate all things American, and are intolerant vis a vis all religions outside their own warped view of Islam.

Moderate Islam is yet to find a voice that will roll back the extremists, a sort of Islamic Martin Luther, or at least a Martin Luther King.

The conclusion I can reach from this article is that Borchgrave is scared, very scared. A little bit of fear in these third rate journalists is always a good thing.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
The conclusion I can reach from this article is that Borchgrave is scared, very scared. A little bit of fear in these third rate journalists is always a good thing.
[/QUOTE]

What in the article leads you to conclude that he is scared? You may also want to read Farid Zakaria's article in newsweek this weeks and last weeks. Fear? I don't think so.

Interesting article. The scary thing is that these Islamic radicals are hell-bent on bringing suffering and destruction to their own religion. To me, it's clear whose side God is on and it's not theirs.

This interview with Lee Kuan Yew appeared in the Far Eastern Economic Review (12th December issue). You do need to register to see the articles. It is another interesting article that bears some connection to the one posted above.


INTERVIEW: LEE KUAN YEW Singapore elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew has strong words on the rise of Islamic extremism in Southeast Asia. In an interview, he explains why the region's tradition of tolerance has gone awry Issue cover-dated December 12, 2002 Far Eastern Economic Review

THE DISCOVERY OF ISLAMIC extremist cells operating out of Southeast Asia has rocked the region, threatening the business environment and a lucrative tourist industry. Home to the largest Muslim population in the world, Southeast Asia has deep-rooted traditions of religious tolerance and moderation. But the October 12 bombing of a nightclub in Bali put the region squarely on the front lines of the new confrontation between Islam and the West. For Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the problem goes beyond Al Qaeda's tentacles reaching into the region. In an interview with REVIEW Editor Michael Vatikiotis, Lee argues that home-grown militants are just as dangerous.

HOW DID ISLAMIC EXTREMISM COME ABOUT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA? When we asked our Muslims, "Why have you become so strict in your religious practices?" they answered, "Because we are better educated and so understand better what must be observed." But the bigger factor is the peer pressure from the heart of the Muslim world. With the increase in religiosity worldwide as a result of Saudi funding of mosques, madrassas and ulemas [religious teachers], whole populations are geared up. Then some of those in a high pitch are hijacked by the extremist radicals to become jihadists. Al Qaeda and their local extremists recruit from the mosques those who look suitable for their own private religious classes, where they are taught that it is the duty of all good Muslims to fight for all oppressed Muslims worldwide, and, if necessary, to die for the cause, to become syahids (martyrs).

IS THAT WHAT THEY DID HERE IN SINGAPORE? Yes. Their leader was a Singapore cleric who was converted by Abu Bakar Bashir in Malaysia. Suharto kept people like Bashir and Hambali down. They fled to Malaysia, where they built up many cells and several in Singapore. With this increased religiosity, plus satellite television, the Arabs have succeeded in getting the Southeast Asian Muslims to become more like Arab Muslims.

HAS THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE LAST FEW YEARS ENCOURAGED THAT? Malaysia was making growth, and so was Indonesia. Singapore is a cosmopolitan city, yet we had one cell! And they identify themselves with Muslim causes in Palestine, Chechnya, Kosovo, where injustices are done to Muslims. Every day their TVs show an all-powerful Israeli army battering the Palestinians. I'm not saying that if you solve the Palestinian problem it'll all go away. Al Qaeda's strategy is for all Muslims, not just Arabs, to rally to fight for all Muslims wherever they are oppressed. And the great oppressor is America, Israel's backer. This call to jihad resonates.

IS THERE A DANGER OF A SERIOUS DIVIDE APPEARING IN ALL THOSE COUNTRIES--MALAYSIA, INDONESIA, SINGAPORE? I can't say I saw terrorism coming. What I saw coming was that it would become increasingly difficult to integrate our Muslims into Singapore society. Instead of community clubs mingling with everybody else, Muslims were spending more time at the mosques for their own social activities. Even their kindergartens are in the mosques.

ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ARRESTED IN SINGAPORE WERE TARGETING WATER PIPES. THAT SEEMED TO HAVE MORE TO DO WITH SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA, NOT INTERNATIONAL JIHAD. That was the idea of the leader of the group, to cause racial and inter-state strife. It's the same doctrine the communists had. In a chaotic situation, the organized minority will take over. So, their objective is, it doesn't matter what it is, just cause strife within the country, strife between races and countries. In the chaos and the confusion that result they will thrive and win power.

IT HAD LESS TO DO WITH OUTSIDE INFLUENCE FROM AL QAEDA? It's a bid for power. They want to create a Muslim state or Daulah Islamiyah, a caliphate that comprises Malaysia, Indonesia, the southern Philippines and Singapore. It's absurd, not achievable. Suppose they were to gain power as the communists did in Eastern Europe--did they become one great communist state? Why should Thai, Malaysian or Filipino Muslims give up power and surrender sovereignty to this caliphate led by Indonesians? But in the struggle for power, it's a tremendous inspirational pull: "We are the purest, we fight for God."

The first thing is to recognize that this is our problem, not an American problem. If you think they are only after the Americans, you're wrong. For Jemaah Islamiah leaders like Bashir and Hambali, they want to seize power here in Indonesia and if possible, the rest of Southeast Asia. We know from their Internet exchanges that there are 100 radical groups in Indonesia with a total of several thousand members. Even if you catch all the Bali bombers, that's only one cell, one of many cells.

WHAT DOES THIS DO TO THE POLITICAL FRAMEWORK HERE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA? It's a threat. More so in those countries whose political institutions are weakened, as in Indonesia. There's little we can do socially or economically that will change this. Look at the people we have arrested. They all own their own homes, none is unemployed. All English-educated, not Malay-educated. They had secondary education, some tertiary, in the polytechnics; one was a university graduate.

IN THE ERA OF THE COMMUNIST THREAT, THE ANTIDOTE WAS STRONG GOVERNMENT. IS THAT THE WAY OUT? If terrorism can be solved through ordinary criminal procedures, well and good. But can it? How did Malaysia put it down? By using the Internal Security Act, the way Singapore put it down. Suppose we had to produce these terrorists in court within 48 hours to charge them and have their lawyers fight for bail, could we have broken them up before they let off the truck bombs? We had them arrested and detained without trial to stop them from committing mischief.

ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT THE THREAT HAS BEEN CLEARED UP? No, how can we say that? We have cleared up this particular cell. Can we be sure there isn't another cell that has gone dormant or "sleeping" for the time being, and can be reactivated?

IF IT'S A QUESTION OF A BID FOR POWER LOCALLY, WHY DIDN'T ANYONE SEE THIS COMING? We did not know that they were prepared to use violence, that they were already linked to Al Qaeda. [Indonesia's B.J.] Habibie made it easier when he was president. He reversed all Suharto's laws which had kept the Muslim radicals down. He allowed them to use religious slogans and religious symbols for their political party purposes, on their flags and their slogans. Suharto forbade that because of the rebellion by Darul Islam, way back in the 1950s and 60s. They never gave up. The only effective pan-Indonesian institution that's secular and nationalist is the TNI [the Indonesian armed forces].

SOUTHEAST ASIAN SOCIETIES ARE TRADITIONALLY VIEWED AS TOLERANT, A HOME FOR MODERATE ISLAM. CAN THEY GO BACK TO THAT ONCE THESE TERRORIST CELLS ARE ROLLED UP? For the time being the tide is the other way. But I do not see it succeeding. Take Iran: Going back to living by the book has not delivered the life Iranians want. Now young Iranian women are openly flouting the rules, putting on lipstick, make-up, demonstrating in the streets with flimsy headscarves. They are dissatisfied and rebellious after 23 years. But the Muslim clerics are not going to give up so easily now that they are in power.

It may take another 20, 30 years before it can go into another cycle, but the theocratic state will fail. And successive failures in the Muslim world will show that the theocratic state, like the communist state, is a mirage. But for the moment Daulah Islamiyah [a Muslim state] has tremendous resonance.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *

What in the article leads you to conclude that he is scared? You may also want to read Farid Zakaria's article in newsweek this weeks and last weeks. Fear? I don't think so.
[/QUOTE]

Fear is what it's ALL about. Why do you think Bushy is afraid to take on Saudis, and instead is going for Iraq to please his daddy?

Please elaborate on that. That was too cryptic for me to grasp. Personally, I think USA is getting ready to take the Saudi Wahabi nexus on directly. That is one reason why the fact that the Saudi’s have been pumping about $4billion per year (that is what the news articles are saying !!!) to propogating Wahabism in the Americas alone. That is why the financial practices of the Saudi charities is under examination, and that is why the $5 million grant to CAIR from Saudis has caused concern and voices for examination of CAIR.

You may want to read the column by Tasbih Sayyed in paktoday (http://www.paktoday.com/tashbih.htm) of December 6, Scorpion’s Shadow III to see how some American muslims are starting to view the Saudi charity!

Here are couple of intro paragraphs from the part I of that series of Articles:

"Growing up in a Muslim society, I was always aware of the hateful extremist streak in Muslim sociology as represented by Deobandi, Salafi and Wahabi schools of thought and its possible lethal consequences for the world. But somehow, I always had confidence that true Islam would prevail through moderate Muslims like the Hanafis and Sufis who countered this destructive mentality by their openness. My confidence in the strengths of true Islam would not have been misplaced and may have even proven to be correct if Saudi Arabia did not find itself in such a financially superior position to other Muslim countries. With trillions of petro-dollars to spare, Saudis are able to propagate their brand of literalist fundamentalism – Wahabbism to every country including the United States. This accidental financial power, as the world experienced on September 11, 2001, proved to be as lethal as the sting of a desert scorpion. While its venom has been painful to many Americans, its shadow is stretched much farther, infecting the nerve center of Muslim thought processes everywhere.

Nowhere is the scorpion’s shadow deeper and darker than in Pakistan. Hindus, Christians, Jews, Ahmadis, Ismailis and Shias all became its target. And their survival became difficult in the “Islamic” republic, turning the life of a day to day working person like me into a high wire act. In the 1970s, I was comfortably settled journalist, working as the head of Pakistan Television’s Current Affairs Department in Karachi. Very quickly, it was made clear to me by the authorities that the only way I could survive at work was if I became a bigot, churning out programs aimed at spewing venom against non-Wahabis, democratic institutions, and pluralistic thinking or end up in jail. I did not want anything to do with it so I was forced to leave the “Islamic” republic of Pakistan. "

Why has the $5 mil grant to CAIR raised concern? Is CAIR a terrorist org? Please don’t peddle BS here.

Back to the issue, Bushy cannot touch the Saudis and he never will as long as the corrupt kings are in charge and they keep the oil flowwing. This has been the arrangemnt for 60 years now and it won’t change anytime soon. Saudi should ahve been teh first coutnry US should have gone after 9/11, but that did not happen.

Now, what we have is Bushy trying to make Iraq prove a negative, without providing any proof.

Here is what the great Eric Margolis has to say on this. He explains it far better than I can.

**AMERICA AND SAUDI ARABIA NEED EACH OTHER **
Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2002
Nov 29, 2002

Americans used to take for granted that Saudi Arabia was one of their most faithful, obedient, and useful allies. The 7,000 or so princes of the Saudi royal family who control 30% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves could always be counted on to support American interests in the Mideast, buy lots of US arms, and sell their oil at low prices.

That was until the attacks of 11 September, 2001, when 15 of the 19 aircraft hijackers turned out to be Saudi citizens. Angry Americans accused Saudi Arabia of being a hotbed of Islamic fanaticism and main paymaster of militant anti-American groups. Conservatives and Israel’s partisans unleashed a stinging campaign in the media and Congress against the Saudi royal family, calling for `regime change’ in Arabia as well as Iraq. Arabia’s oil, warned Washington’s oil imperialists, was too precious to be left to the Saudis - or to any Arabs, for that matter.

Then came week’s huge embarrassment. Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia’s high-profile ambassador to Washington, was alleged to have given thousands of dollars of private charitable donations for medical care to individuals she did not know that may have ended up in the hands of two of the US-based 9/11 hijackers.

Prince Bandar and his wife insist they had no knowledge their largesse would go to the hijackers, which sounds credible. The Bandars appear to be victims of exceptionally bad luck - if the story is even true. True or not, the allegations further enflame anti-Arab feeling in the US and are giving Israel’s partisans in the media and Congress more ammunition to shoot at the Saudis. The White House is using the nasty episode to increase pressure on Riyadh to reverse its refusal to allow US forces to use Saudi bases to attack Iraq.

So are the Saudis in fact responsible for financing what Americans call terrorism? It depends what one calls terrorism. The Saudis were the main financiers of the Afghan mujihadin in the 1980’s, in a secret alliance with the United States. During the same era, the Saudis covertly joined the US in financing Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran. Saudi money went to the US-backed Nicaraguan contras, and to the UNITA forces of Jonas Savimbi in Angola - all `freedom fighters.’

The Saudis also bankrolled small, militant Islamic groups - often with full US backing - provided they stayed far away from Arabia. In Afghanistan, Saudi money financed Taliban, which warred against Afghanistan’s communist Northern Alliance, Wahabi fighters battling pro-Iranian Shia groups, and militant Wahabi missionaries.

Individual Saudis, a few of them princes, and some Saudi religious charities, gave millions of dollars to groups they held to be freedom fighters: notably Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine (branded `terrorists’ by the US and Israel). Financial aid to the needy and oppressed is a basic tenet of Islam.

Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, has long received funds from a small number of wealthy Saudis who see him as the Che Guevara of the Arab World battling US domination. However, the Saudi regime had nothing to do with these contributions. At the time they were made, the Saudi government was trying to assassinate bin Laden. Most of the funds came from foreign bank accounts over which the Saudi government had no control.

The Saudi royals are now in a dangerous predicament. They depend on American military power for protection against Iraq and Iran - and their own people. The 5,000 US troops based in Saudi Arabia and 40,000 American civilians there are regarded by many Saudis as an army of occupation. Most Saudis idolize America, but are furious at Washington for its unquestioned support of Israel and impending war against Iraq, which they view as naked aggression.

So the royal family must play a risky game, balancing their people’s growing anti-Americanism, which is mirrored across the Muslim World, with their military and political dependence on the US, and need to stay in Washington’s good books.

But the US also needs the Saudis. First, foremost, they supply oil to the US, Europe, and Japan in great quantity, at very low price. Today, oil sells for US$25 a barrel. Bin Laden asserts the west is robbing Arabia’s resources: oil, he insists, should cost $300 a barrel.

The Saudis buy huge quantities of advanced US arms they cannot use and mostly keep in storage: US $40 billion from 1993-2000. These purchases keep US military production lines open, reduce costs of US weapons, and employ large numbers of highly paid defense workers in key electoral states. The Saudis keep at least US$100 billion in the US financial system, with big chunks in government debt.

No matter how dismayed Americans are with Saudis - and vice versa- they need each other. Sweep away the royal family and a Col. Khadaffi or Saddam Hussein would likely seize power who will not so readily answer Washington’s beck and call. Or, if true democratic elections are ever held, Islamists might win. They hold the outrageously subversive idea that Arabia’s vast oil wealth must serve all the Muslim World and not just 7,000 pampered princes.

http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm

This turning away from a religious discussion. It should be moved back to World forum.

**AN OFFER SADDAM CAN’T REFUSE **
Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2002
Nov 15, 2002

A favorite terror technique of the Soviet secret police during the great purges of the 1930’s was to arrest a suspect at 3am, and drag him into an interrogation room at the dreaded Lubyanka prison. A blank piece of paper and pencil were put on front of the trembling prisoner. Write down each and every one of your crimes, and names of all your fellow conspirators,' warned NKVD interrogators. We know everything you have done. If you omit even one crime in your confession, you and your entire family will be shot.’

The Bush Administration - behind the fig-leaf of UN inspectors - is using the same old Soviet technique on Iraq: `list all your hidden weapons of mass destruction (wmd’s) and scientists who made them. Leave off even one site or name and we will immediately go to war against you.’

Iraq is being an impossible task: to prove a negative. Baghdad must show evidence it does not possess weapons of mass destruction. If the Bush Administration claims a particular site is used for wmd’s, yet it does not appear on Baghdad’s confession list, then Iraq, according to the US-written rules of this rigged game, has automatically committed a `material breach’ of the UN resolution, and the US will attack.

Baghdad December 2002 Presidential Bunker 27

`Oh Saddam, Light of the Euphrates, Sword of Islam, Lord of Babylon…’

`Yes, yes, what is it, Gen. Hamid?’

`The Americans are insisting Dairy Plant 12 is a nerve gas production facility. It’s not on our confession list.’

`Is it a nerve gas factory? I thought we only made nerve gas in baby food plants?"

`No, Oh Radiance of the Tigris, it’s just a milk plant. But if the Americans don’t find poison gas there they will claim we are lying and then start the war.’

`We can’t have that. Quick, general, get some machines over there and begin making poison gas so we can admit we are guilty so the Americans won’t attack. Do this by dawn or you will be demoted to private third class in my glorious Suicide Commandos.’

Or,

Baghdad, May, 2003. US II Corps Commander Lt Gen Delmar Creech to Military Governor of Iraq, General Tommy Franks. `Dear Franks of Mesopotamia (thought you’d like to know what the boys call you), we’ve searched this whole miserable little country high and low but can’t find any weapons of mass destruction, except for a few old, rusted drums of stale mustard gas from the 1980’s. My orders are to find wmd’s. What should I do?

Franks to Creech. `Delmar, you squirrel-brained dimwit, if you can’t find any wmd’s, then make some. The Commander-in-Chief says Saddam’s got ‘em, you’ve got to prove him right, or you’re on permanent latrine detail in Alaska. We invaded this camel farm because there were supposed to be wmd’s hidden here. Do it like we use to make moonshine back home: just mix up some ol’ chemicals that stink real bad - try floor wax remover, ammonia, anchovy paste and garlic powder - let’em marinate in the sun a few days, then call a press conference. Those dumb journalists won’t know nerve gas from hair tonic.

Or….

Oh Great Saddam, Second Saladin, Sword of the Arabs…' Yes, yes, what is it now?’ Phone call from Carlyle Group in Washington.' Isn’t that the company owned by the Bush’s and their Pentagon business cronies? `Yes, your sublime Iraqiness, it is.’

`Hello, President Saddam, this is Frank Carlucci, CEO of Carlyle Group. No, no, not Chief Espionage Officer, Chief Executive Officer. No, I’m not under federal indictment for stock fraud. No I’m not seeking asylum in Iraq.

`Listen, we’ve costed war against Iraq and it comes in around $200 billion. Now here’s the deal. We’ll buy you out of Iraq for $174 billion, half cash, half paper, with a $3 mil monthly retainer, use of our corporate jets, a Fifth Avenue coop apartment, fresh flowers daily, a secretarial staff, golf club memberships, and season tickets to the NY Mets.’

`I’ve checked with the White House. Take this deal and you’ll be re-classified from Dangerous Dictator to Freedom-Loving Ally. You’ll also get a genuine enameled American flag pin for your lapel to prove you’re not an evil Muslim.’

This is an offer you can't refuse, Mr. Saddam. As President Bush says, you’re either with us or against us.’

I spit on your $174 billion. Do you take me for the Father of Fools? The net present value of our oil reserves is $6.8 trillion dollars. And didn't I just see the bullying villain in Walt Disney's cartoon Beauty and Beast’ use the same `with us or against us’ line?’

So what. The president has a wide range of interests. How about your own TV talk show, Ask Saddam,’ and a Miami Beach condo?’

`Now, you’re talking. But who will run Iraq for you?

`We’re hoping you will, as a senior consultant for Carlyle Group. After all, no one knows how to manage this crazy country better than you, Oh Light of the Fertile Crescent!’

`Throw in Kuwait, and you’ve got a deal!’

http://www.bigeye.com/111502.htm

Back to the issue, Bushy cannot touch the Saudis and he never will as long as the corrupt kings are in charge and they keep the oil flowwing.

What non-sense!

Now, Saudi Kings are corrupt, huh?

As for Bush not taking on Saudis, reason Oil Oil Oil, which is why CIA never spyed on Saudi Royal Family.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
**Back to the issue, Bushy cannot touch the Saudis and he never will as long as the corrupt kings are in charge and they keep the oil flowwing.
*

What non-sense!

Now, Saudi Kings are corrupt, huh?

As for Bush not taking on Saudis, reason Oil Oil Oil, which is why CIA never spyed on Saudi Royal Family.
[/QUOTE]
Of course they are. They are corrupt hypocrites. They tell US somethign else, and their own people something esle.

Even Mushy is better than them. He tells the same lies to his own people and to the US.

You are right about second point.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
Of course they are. They are corrupt hypocrites. They tell US somethign else, and their own people something esle.
[/quote]

How come they are corrupt? What lies have they told to their people?

[quote]
Even Mushy is better than them. He tells the same lies to his own people and to the US.
[/quote]

What Musharraf gotta do with Saudi-US story?

Imdad writes; "Why has the $5 mil grant to CAIR raised concern? Is CAIR a terrorist org? Please don't peddle BS here. "

Please read again what I have written. I am not saying one word against CAIR. I am merely reporting what is being said not by any american but by a Pakistani ... Tashbih Sayyed of paktoday. Take a little time to read what he has written.

Here is one paragraph:
"Like a desert scorpion, Wahabbis are experts in mixing with their surroundings. And like a shadow they assume the shape and form of anything that they lay over. In the US they are taking advantage of its freedoms. Here, they are exploiting a long tradition of civil rights movement. They are pretending to be advocacy groups. But in reality they are working for their foreign masters. Their main objective is to spread anxiety, despair and fear among Muslims by playing up imagined civil rights injustices against them. They use their advocacy cover to create a distrust about the intent of American security concerns."

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
Imdad writes; "Why has the $5 mil grant to CAIR raised concern? Is CAIR a terrorist org? Please don't peddle BS here. "

Please read again what I have written. I am not saying one word against CAIR. I am merely reporting what is being said not by any american but by a Pakistani ... Tashbih Sayyed of paktoday. Take a little time to read what he has written.

[/QUOTE]
Tell me again why I should care what some unknown Pakistani journalist has to say about CAIR? You obviosuly think this Tashbih guy is important, since you are reporting his news, yet I have never ever heard of this guy before.

I'll be awaiting your reply.

Imdad, I don't know whether he is an important fellow or not. He used to head the PTV news in Karachi in the 1970's and then was pushed out because he saw the sectranism that was starting to be pushed. It is upto you whether you want to take the time to read his views or not. I have heard him talk and I like what he has to say. He is an American now, and he voices pro-american views. Just for that you may want to see that not all Pakistani-americans are anti western and anti USA. He has some valid things to say.

Saudi give millions in building mosque also and give away free korans hmmm definite proof of terrorist activities then :rotfl"

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
Imdad, I don't know whether he is an important fellow or not. He used to head the PTV news in Karachi in the 1970's and then was pushed out because he saw the sectranism that was starting to be pushed. It is upto you whether you want to take the time to read his views or not. I have heard him talk and I like what he has to say. He is an American now, and he voices pro-american views. Just for that you may want to see that not all Pakistani-americans are anti western and anti USA. He has some valid things to say.
[/QUOTE]

PTV? Their goes this guy's credibility. Anyone associated with that crap channel is not worth listening to in my book.

I'd rather listen to Eric Margolis talk or read his articles. He writes better and has come on CNN/CNBC many times. His knowledge of the Pak-Afghan region and the politics that spawned Al-Qaida is far greater than any formor or current PTV guy. I suggest you read his articles and stop going after Tasbih type of people who blow a lot of hot air.

It is a delight to read that you rank CNN/CNBC so highly and of all the journalists, Eric Margolis! That says it more or less completely.

Eric Margolis
Marginalizes Himself
The Collapse of a Good Talent
http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/versluys/JV20020908.html

The article is much kinder and gentler to Eric than need be. Eric has truly given a new meaning to “Johnny one note” in journalism.

Is Arnaud de Borchgrave as clueless as he sounds? His analysis of Ibn Taymiyya reeks of ignorance.

Iqbal