Replies

Wahhabi

Saudi Smokescreen
By Rebekah E. Reese
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 16, 2002

The Saudis are selling themselves as abused good guys and the State Department and the White House are buying it.

There is a tug of war going on in America between those who believe that the Saudis are directly or indirectly responsible for a good portion of Islamic terrorism, and those who believe the Saudis are good, long-standing allies of the United States and are doing everything possible to assist the U.S. in its fight against terror. The Saudis have of course been avidly promoting the false latter angle, but have simultaneously done little about the real sources of terrorist support in their country.

The Saudis are only willing to address terrorism and their role in financing it when confronted directly. Otherwise, they equivocate, hesitate and glad-hand with American politicians and reporters to prove to the world how moderate, modern and congenial they are.

Since 9/11, the Saudi public relations machine has been trying to convince the American public and government of their friendship while ardently disavowing Saudi involvement in the attacks or in al Qaeda. Shortly after the attacks, the King's nephew Prince Alwaleed bin Talal attempted to appease America with a $10 million contribution to New York City. The Saudi royal family has purchased full-page newspaper ads in national papers as well as national TV spots. Several American PR firms have been retained by the Saudis. One was used to distribute a document to Capitol Hill staffers, another is placing ads proclaiming the Kingdom as a staunch U.S. ally, and yet another was hired to push the Saudi's "peace plan," after it was released last winter. Their smiling, American and Americanized spokespersons are on a campaign to spread love of this quasi-medieval kingdom that is deeply ambivalent about America.

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah leaked his "peace plan" for Israel and Palestine to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in February 2002. The plan was a distraction attempt, since there was nothing in the peace plan that had not already been suggested, save that after Israel and Palestine became peaceful, the Saudis would graciously recognize the state of Israel. When news of the plan came out, the Saudis had been taking a beating in the American court of public opinion due to their unwillingness to work with the U.S. in the war on terror. The peace plan and the media frenzy that followed temporarily distracted attention away from the Saudi's connections to terrorist organizations, and gave them breathing space. The Saudi government, or at least its paid consultants in Washington, are nothing if not shrewd, being gifted with the political skills of the bazaar and those required to stay alive in the lethal but always-shifting political sands of the Middle East.

The Saudis did something similar in November 2002, when the news broke that Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to America, indirectly financially supported two of the 9/11 terrorists. A firestorm of outrage and accusation broke out against the Saudis. Adel al-Jubeir, a top foreign affairs aide to Crown Prince Abdullah, was the main spokesperson at a news conference December 3. He tried to put a good spin on the recently publicized details regarding how frequently Saudi royal funds end up directly supporting terrorists. Al-Jubeir, incidentally, announced new Saudi measures to regulate the flow of such funds.

The American-educated al-Jubeir, also known among the media as "the Sultan of Spin," is smooth and articulate. He presents Saudi Arabia as being much-abused and insulted by the accusations against his beloved nation. He portrays himself as the voice of reason who must somehow explain the simple ‘truth’ to befuddled American masses - who do not truly understand the real issues. He is tasked with communicating how hard the Kingdom is trying to halt terrorism. Al-Jubeir gently condemned allegations of terrorist funding, proclaiming that they were "More a function of domestic American politics. We're just the political football."

Although the Saudi government presents a friendly, supportive face to the West, it presents an entirely different one to Muslims. The Saudi state religion, Wahhabism, is an extreme sect of Islam invented in the 18th century and intimately tied up with the legitimacy of the al Saud family as rulers of the kingdom. Its closest analogy within the Judeo-Christian tradition would be one of extreme varieties of Protestantism that once existed: perhaps Calvinism in its original form, or perhaps the militarist Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell. The Sauds feel obliged to support it, both for the practical reason of maintaining the support of local clergy, and for the ideological reason that they have no other political philosophy. The two main Saudi exports are oil and religion. Without their religious foundations, it is unlikely that the nation of tribes could have held together. The discovery and drilling of oil cemented the foundation. The Saudis deliberately export, at huge financial expense, their peculiar brand of Islam around the world in an attempt to gain political influence and to placate their own extremists. The money that the Saudis receive from oil exports has been used to support various terrorist organizations and Wahhabi indoctrination centers worldwide. A majority of American mosques are Wahhabi-financed.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5104

You said:

To: Amelia

Are you implying that homosexuality is something normal? Why would you say that?

Why would you think a person with a sexual deviancy is best qualified to be in a position of power?

441 posted on 02/19/2003 8:50 PM EST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)

I did not state or imply whether I thought homosexuality was normal or abnormal. Please quote what I said that gave you that impression.

I try to say what I mean, and any attempts by you to "read in to" my statements will likely reflect your prejudices, not my feelings, unless you are a mindreader.

Having not seen the resumes of the contenders for the positions, I wouldn't know for certain who was best qualified. Apparently the President (who according to you selected 6 homosexuals) thought they were best qualified.

One of the "traditional" problems with having homosexuals in positions of power was that they could be blackmailed. If someone is openly homosexual, I wouldn't think that would apply.