No matter how bad the fundamentalist
Sunni-Islamic Saud royal family are, America’s government still supports
them and condemns the countries that the Sauds hate: those are the
Shia-led nations of Iran and of Syria.
All jihadist terrorism is Sunni, none of
it is Shia; but the U.S. government is anti-Shia, not anti-Sunni. There
were no Shia involved in the 9/11 attacks, nor in the Mumbai attacks,
nor in the Charlie Hebdo or other Paris attacks, nor in the London
bombing, nor in any of the others. All of the terrorism that wracks
Afghanistan and Pakistan is Sunni. ISIS is Sunni; Al Qaeda is Sunni. As
Sunni fundamentalists, they all hate especially Shia as “infidels,” because Shia claim to
be Muslims, and Sunni fundamentalists take that very claim to be not
only a lie but a personal insult to themselves as ‘real’ Muslims,
because they ‘know’ what a ‘real’ Muslim is — they’ve been taught it, and it’s distinctively Sunni.
But the U.S. government keeps harping
instead against the Shia group Hezbollah, which is at war against Israel
because of the barbaric way that Israel treats its Palestinians. But
that’s not terrorism in anything like the same sense — it’s not
jihadist, it’s not out for global conquest; and it certainly doesn’t
threaten us. And it’s really none of America’s business to get
involved with, anyway — it is Israel’s problem, entirely: and Israel
flagrantly violates even the Camp David accords that the U.S. government
itself brokered; and, so, for America to be involved on either side
there is plain wrong — but the U.S. government donates, from its own
taxpayers, over $3 billion every year to Israel, so that it’ll buy
weapons from U.S. arms-makers. This give-away to the U.S. weapons-industry is
supposed to be ‘humanitarian,’ and ‘foreign aid.’ It actually aids more
in killing than it does in protecting; the sheer hypocrisy of that
subsidy to U.S. weapons-makers is obscene. But anyway: Hezbollah is a
sideshow in a discussion of terrorism, and it’s not at all jihadist. By contrast, the Saud family fund jihad. And yet the U.S. government considers them allies, if not its top allies. Something’s very wrong here.
The Sauds have impunity, at least from the U.S. government. Instead of the U.S. government being against the tyrants who rule Saudi Arabia, the U.S. government overthrows the leaders (tyrants or otherwise) who are allied with Russia
— which just happens to be another country that the Sauds are at war
against. Thus, the U.S. overthrew Russia-friendly Saddam Hussein in
2003, and Russia-friendly Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and Russia-friendly Viktor Yanukovych in 2014,
and our government is allied with the Sauds and other top funders of
terrorism, global jihadist Islam — all of whom are Sunnis — to overthrow
Bashar al-Assad, because he not only is Shiite but allies with Russia,
and because the Sauds hate Russia almost as much as the leadership of
America do (so the U.S. is allied in this with the Sunni dictatorships: not only the Saud royals but the Qatar royals, and the Kuwait royals, and the UAE royals, and all of the Arabic-oil royal families are led by the Saudi King, the world’s wealthiest person, and the organizer of a new Saudi-run Sunni version of America’s NATO alliance against Russia).
The people who control America are lots more anti-Russian than they are anti-terrorist
— and any old excuse will serve America’s leaders to ‘justify’ that
priority, to the public whom they treat as their suckers, not as the
people in a democracy, who are supposed to own this government (“We, the People …”), and from whom it has been stolen.
So, something’s fishy here. It’s the U.S.
government, obviously, and it emits the stench of rotten fish. The U.S.
government’s ulterior motives are constantly reeking. It’s the stench
of our government’s constant lying-to-the-public.
Here’s the reality about our Saudi ‘friends’:
Ever since 1744, when the gang-leader
Muhammad Ibn Saud and the fanatically anti-Shiite Sunni preacher
Muhammad Ibn Wahhab swore their mutual oath to one-another, the Sauds
have hated Shia and been set upon defeating them. That oath started what
we today know as Saudi Arabia: a union of church-and-state (Saudi
government with Wahhabist clerics validating that family’s authority to
rule) that seeks first to exterminate all Shia Muslims, and then to
organize all Muslims together into global conquest, to bring every
nation under strict Sunni rule. (And anyone who resists will be beheaded and then crucified.) Wahhab hated Shia for their trying to soften the original Islam.
(Wahhabism is called “Salafism” when it’s being practiced outside the
Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia, but its principles are the same under
either name. ISIS is also the same as Saudi, except that it demands the
global Islamic leader to be a descendant of the Prophet, which the Sauds
are not. In this regard, ISIS poses a real threat to the Sauds. ISIS
then is an enemy of the Sauds inside Saudi Arabia, but a useful
fighting-oprganization for the Sauds’ objectives outside Saudi Arabia.)
The aggressor in the world isn’t Shia;
it’s Sunni. And the custodians of the two holiest places in Islam —
Mecca and Medina — are the extremist-Sunni Saud family, which America’s
government call ‘friends.’ The Saud family won what they have by conquest:
to allege they got it by either ‘capitalism’ or ‘democracy’ would be to
insult both. Worse yet: it would be to lie. And they’re no ‘friends’ of
America. But maybe they are our masters. Here’s how they managed to
grab what they’ve got:
Furthermore:
That jihad continues today, but the U.S.
government joins it, instead of repudiates and condemns it. The U.S.
government is instead obsessed with conquering Russia. This obsession started
just while the Cold War against the Soviet Union and its communism was
ending. It has dominated U.S. foreign policy ever since.
Inside Saudi Arabia, the Saud family, who financed Al Qaeda,
behead some of their own jihadists in order to achieve two objectives:
first, to get rid of some of the Sunni extremists who say that the Sauds
aren’t sufficiently extreme or “pure”; and, second, to please
American and other suckers to believe that, in America’s allying with
the very same people who provide the funding to jihadists, the U.S.
isn’t acting against the interests of the American people. Even a
beheading can be a PR stunt, in one way or another.
The hypocrisy of America’s leaders is what stinks enough to make rotting fish smell like fragrance by comparison.
Why isn’t even one U.S. Presidential candidate promising to end the selling of weapons to those jihadist tyrants (the Sauds and the other Arabic oil-potentates — all of the Sunni national leaders),
and to organize global economic sanctions against the Sauds and their
friends the other funders of jihadism? Let those clans sell their oil
and gas, but there should be an internationally coordinated arms embargo
against them. Instead, the Sauds are by far the largest foreign
purchasers of U.S. weapons (and, unlike Israel, they pay for all of it
with their own inherited money, not with money that was donated to them
by America’s taxpayers).
How else can jihadism be brought to an end in our time? Why isn’t the reality behind jihadism even being publicly discussed? Why?
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment