Skip to main content

Having looked at CBS's 60 Minutes report on the 9/11 Commission with clear implications of the Saudis (government and private citizens and organizations) you have to ask what is the motive, if the Saudis have hijacked Islam for its own purposes, of what the world has witnessed in the past 2 decades.

We have to remember that on November 20, 1979, with the Iranian hostage crisis in its third week, gunmen stunned the world by seizing the Grand Mosque in Mecca. They held 100,000 people hostage and it lasted two weeks. There were hundreds of deaths and a lot of rage against the United States. These dudes wanted revenge and to get back to a way of Islam that was frankly barbarous. The Saudi royal family madea deal with the insurgents, thus beginning the export of wahabbism and the madrassas around the world.

Remember also when the first Bush took action to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, the Saudi King spurned Osama bin Laden's offer to get the Baathist army out of Kuwait and he was seething when he saw US Army boots on the holy land of Mecca. Al Qaeda was born.

On this forum the popular sentiment is that Islam is either an evil religion, or all religion is evil or ordinary Muslims delight in the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. No one is going to eradicate from the minds of those who see Islam as evil that the Quran encourages this medieval behavior. I've tried to advance the notion that Islam is misused by those who are un-Islamic and therefore the atrocities are not due to Islam and that we all are responsible for reacting to this and not just leave it up to ordinary Muslims.

The key is to understand the difference between ideology and religion. What happened in the past week in Turkey, Bangladesh and Iraq is the work of an ideology in the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in which the majority of the casualty are Muslim people.

The question  then is why did the US government shield the Saudis on 9/11? Their's was the only plane to fly that day out of the US from Houston I believe. Why did the first Bush not intervene before Saddam walked into Iraq, after Saddam's Baathist army took on the Iranian Shiites in a proxy was in the US interest? This intervention is something the US was asked (as a n observer at the Gulf Cooperation Council when Saddam complained about Kuwait slant drilling and the loss of billions of dollars due to keeping the oil price artificially low, which helped us American consumer and industry). Also we have to ask why did ther 2nd Bush attack Iraq when it had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD, thuis creating the Baathist-dominated ISIS?

I'm sure you all have things to weigh in on. I don't mind if the conversation is opened up about Islam in the 21st century. Ads a Muslim I think there needs to be a reformation-like process to get some authoritative direction on Islam. The Saudis have taken over a religion of which they are about 1%. Maybe it's time to make Mecca and the Kaaba an international place not owned by anybody.

 

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Some good observations and the powers around the world are not free from culpability but all that is now water under the bridge because no one cares to acknowledge their fault. The burden is now on the Muslim community to either fix it or carry the full effect of it. That is unfortunate but the reality.

Saudi's wealth has been good and bad for Muslims. Oil wealth has made it possible for many to observe the hajj with relative comfort but their brand of Islamic rituals is way too extreme. I don't see any corrections coming soon but I and the vast Muslim community can surely use some.

FM

Kari, I've read your opening statement. I confess to possessing inadequate knowledge to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. But it seems to me that the core issue is not religion/Islam but geopolitics and deadly rivalry for control of certain regions and their economic resources. Islam is merely a tool that is misused big time in that geopolitical rivalry. This is my two cents, brother.

FM

The 2 billion Islamic believers do not grasp the tenents as the few men who possess the knowledge of the end-time prophecies. They are all Islamist. It is claimed to be written in their book. Iranians are schooled in anticipation of the events.

It is not surprising that Saudie Arabia is the guardian of Islam. Just a few miles away, Nimrod set up the first world religion of Baal worship in the region. It is ancient, but the beliefs are similar in the demonstration of the ashraft columns. 

My thoughts on this is not to bash Islam but merely to state what is to come according to the muslim clerics.

It is written in the other book, "at the end-times, lucifer and his armies will surge from the Euphrates."

The situation in Iraq does look like it. The religion is in turmoil.

 

S

Seignet my brother, surprise is not an attribute of Saudi Arabia being the guardian of Islam. The Kaa'ba is in Mecca which is in Saudi Arabia, so there is no surprise there.

These "Islamists" with end-time prophesies must feel pretty lonely among the rest of humanity. I'm so glad you provide a great level of comfort to them and counsel the rest of humanity on its inadequate understanding of this "fact".

The world has seen worse than Iraq before. Remember Indonesia in the mid-60s? Remember Cambodia in the 70s? Remember Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90s? These "Islamist" sages weren't hollering end-times then, were they?!

Kari
Gilbakka posted:

Kari, I've read your opening statement. I confess to possessing inadequate knowledge to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. But it seems to me that the core issue is not religion/Islam but geopolitics and deadly rivalry for control of certain regions and their economic resources. Islam is merely a tool that is misused big time in that geopolitical rivalry. This is my two cents, brother.

Gilly, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the cessation of the Iron Curtain, proxy wars went out of the window. The US was the only super power. The first Bush was still stuck in the cold war era and thus the cardinal failure to properly disband the Osama bin Laden Mujahedin that fought one proxy war for the US (against the soviets in Afghanistan). In fact oil price was like $11 a barrel in the decade of the 80s and the real economic price should have been $21 if not for Saudi-led, American-influenced OPEC, leading Saddam to think that he lost 3 (millions barrel a day export) x 365 (days in the year) x 10 years (the decade) x $10 = $30 million x 3,650 days = 109 billion US dollars. The Saudis were calling back their war financing, and don't forget the Iraqi Baathist army lost 1 million Sunni men. So both bin Laden (over US troops in the holy land) and Saddam had grievances.

Clinton wisely used US power softly but did its historic humanitarian duty to prevent genocide, albeit late in both Bosnia and Rwanda. He also did not grasp the deep danger posed by the radicals in the Arab world even though he chased bin Laden out of Somalia, or was it the Sudan.

The guy who took the cake though is the Bush son, who was led by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why did he have to go in to Iraq, for heavens sake?  And the de-baathification? We're still dealing with that in the form of ISIS. The Bush years were premised on the total dominance of American military power to change events. Boy, what a sad reading.

Obama had the benefit of (i) learning the lessons of the past, and (ii) being well-read and having lived in a different culture for a little time. He knows the limit of American military power, but also know its strengths. His one big weakness I'm sure he'd admit to is not taking the Baathist soldiers threat seriously, and it could be because he knew they were secular and not radical, distorted, blasphemers who incorporated the religion of Islam. HE also knew the different tribal loyalties, like he understood that the Crimea id an integral part of mother Russia like Massachusetts is to the US, though he had to act pro-forma and institute sanctions, but no military buildup as the Ukrainians were calling for. Obama's one thing is to have the Arabs themselves sort this out while the US does the minimum necessary. That makes sense as you have to think about the next morning and then there is the uncounted costs.

You wanna know why Obama brought in Iran? It was a move destined to get the Saudis to watch what they're doing with their Wahabbisim and the terrorism in the distorted name of Islam. It's also to let Ntanyahu know he does not have all te US cards in his hands. Know this, the Arabs don't give one piss about the Palestinians. you think ISIS cares too? Look how they don't try that garbage on Israel.

Hillary as President will probably see the Arabs winning the battle against ISIS and the death of this ideology that breeds San Bernadino, Orlando, Brussels, Paris, Ankara, Dacca, etc. We've seen how Al Qaeda's Madrid and London and Bali bombings have ceased. Once this gets settled hopefully early in Hillary's term, we'll have to see how she handles Netanyahu and if Iran will be a big help to her. But she gotta keep the Saudi Wahabbi monster in check. End-times? Gimme a break!

Kari

The Saud Royal family had an association with extreme Islam going back centuries. It did not start in 1979. In fact it was followers of radical Islam that helped the Saud family to regain their kingdom when they were overthrown and driven from Arabia into exile by the Turks and the Al Rashid family 

Prashad
Last edited by Prashad
Gilbakka posted:

Kari, I've read your opening statement. I confess to possessing inadequate knowledge to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. But it seems to me that the core issue is not religion/Islam but geopolitics and deadly rivalry for control of certain regions and their economic resources. Islam is merely a tool that is misused big time in that geopolitical rivalry. This is my two cents, brother.

I wrote on these things here for over a decade only to be reduculed and called anti Islam. The Saudis used their money like Christians use missionary work, to spread their brand of islam. You see it in guyana. Saudi trained clerics returning and changing the faith. We never had burka but in ever Muslim gathering you will see a portion of the congregants to be fully burkaized. It is not about power and possessing economic resources but possessing minds.

 

 

FM

Wahabs are the gravest danger to humanity as we know it since Hitler.  That entire sect needs to be wiped out and replaced with a moderate ideology.  Islam will be better served without this scourge.  We are headed for Armageddon and we cannot afford to lose.  All the powers of the world will need to unite and destroy this cancer at its source and all they way within our own societies.  They are already among us. 

FM
Stormborn posted:
Gilbakka posted:

Kari, I've read your opening statement. I confess to possessing inadequate knowledge to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. But it seems to me that the core issue is not religion/Islam but geopolitics and deadly rivalry for control of certain regions and their economic resources. Islam is merely a tool that is misused big time in that geopolitical rivalry. This is my two cents, brother.

I wrote on these things here for over a decade only to be reduculed and called anti Islam. The Saudis used their money like Christians use missionary work, to spread their brand of islam. You see it in guyana. Saudi trained clerics returning and changing the faith. We never had burka but in ever Muslim gathering you will see a portion of the congregants to be fully burkaized. It is not about power and possessing economic resources but possessing minds.

 

 

I agree. They are doing it on a large scale in Pakistan.

Prashad
ba$eman posted:

Wahabs are the gravest danger to humanity as we know it since Hitler.  That entire sect needs to be wiped out and replaced with a moderate ideology.  Islam will be better served without this scourge.  We are headed for Armageddon and we cannot afford to lose.  All the powers of the world will need to unite and destroy this cancer at its source and all they way within our own societies.  They are already among us. 

Careful there. Some ayatollah or mullah will issue a fatwa for your head.

FM
 Stormborn posted:

I wrote on these things here for over a decade only to be reduculed and called anti Islam. The Saudis used their money like Christians use missionary work, to spread their brand of islam. You see it in guyana. Saudi trained clerics returning and changing the faith. We never had burka but in ever Muslim gathering you will see a portion of the congregants to be fully burkaized. It is not about power and possessing economic resources but possessing minds.

 

 

Guyanese Muslims are being indoctinated with Saudi/Wahab hatred. Don't fool youselves, many right here on this board have mothers, sisters and wives fully or almost fully burkaized. The USA should ban this type of wear as criminals can use it to shield their identity.  Any garment which blocks the face permanently should be banned.

Ok, in winter we use scarves, dont use that as an excuse for full-face burkas!

FM
Prince posted:

Saudi Arabia is the Vatican City for all Muslims around the world. Money and power get the better of the greedy. Mosques around the world were built with blood money. Terrorist organization are funded with blood money. Mecca is becoming commercialized and also funded with blood money.

These evil doers need to be taken down a notch or two!!

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×