What's new

The Saudi war in Iraq and lessons for Pakistan

LeJ and ISIS linked
DAWN

The Sindh IGP said that Daesh or the self-styled Islamic State and the banned sectarian militant group Lashkar-i-Jhangvi (LJ) were linked to each other.

Referring to the Safoora attack suspects, he said they had been involved with Daesh for at least a year and had been receiving instructions from one Abdul Aziz located in Syria.

IS was behind Safoora attack
The former interior minister and the head of the Senate committee on the interior, Rehman Malik, said IS was “100 per cent” behind the Karachi attack, citing testimony from the Sindh provincial police chief to his committee.

“IS was 100 per cent involved in it, the attack was planned from Syria and the attackers were receiving orders from a Pakistani member of IS presently in Syria,” Malik said after the Monday meeting where the Sindh police chief testified.

“So far 14 people belonging to IS have been arrested in Pakistan.”

Malik said Abdul Aziz, the alleged mastermind of the attack, is from the city of Jhelum in Punjab province, and lived in interior Sindh for some time before moving to Syria.

Six laptops containing sensitive information which were recovered from the suspects have been decrypted, Sindh IGP said, adding that the development will help in the progress of the investigation. A 'hit-list' of to-be-targeted officials was also recovered from the Safoora suspects, he added.
 
Huffington Post
Alastair Crooke


BEIRUT -- The dramatic arrival of Da'ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed -- and horrified -- by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia's ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, "Don't the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?"

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist/Salafist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan -- please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.


THE SAUDI DUALITY
Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS
The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca."

In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times"), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life."

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims, infidels, should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.

"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

"Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. "


Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."


Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud -- in this 20th century renaissance -- were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab's and Ibn Saud's earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary "Jacobinism" exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted -- leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life -- and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

"On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism."


But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system -- hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.


ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.
As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal's modernization campaign). The "Ikhwan approach" enjoyed -- and still enjoys -- the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS' undermining of the legitimacy of the King's legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhabi project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the deep-rooted Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?
 
We were hearing it since 2006 that ME powers will provide funds to Pakistan to buy equipment from West. Any possibility now?
 
The Reality Of Present Saudi Arabia Exposed – A Must Read For All Muslims « Answering Wahhabism And Salafism

The Saudi Royal Family Are Jews! العائلة المالكة في السعودية هي اليهود

2002 Iraqi Intel Reported Wahhabis Are of Jewish Origin | Conspiracy School

The Jewish roots of the Saudi Royal Family

Saudi Royal Family is Jewish! King and Prince are all Jew! | SHOAH

Facts about Saudi Royals - CIF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Saudi Royal Family and the its Jewish roots?

The Truth Will Set You Free: Saudi Arabia: Jewish Bloodline, Jewish State

Saudi gives Israel $16 billion

Saudis behind 60% of Iraq bombings: Saudi paper | Electronic Resistance

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available




Zionist rulers of Arabia:

Translated from Arabic
Book Cover


RESEARCH AND PRESENTATION OF MOHAMMAD SAKHER who was ordered killed by the Saudi Regime for the following findings:

1. Are the Saudi Family members belonging to the Tribe of ANZA BEN WA'EL as they allege to be?
2. Is Islam their actual religion?
3. Are they of an ARAB ORIGIN at all?

THE SAUDI DYNASTY: IT'S ORIGIN AND WHO IS THE REAL ANCESTOR OF THIS 'ROYAL' FAMILY?

Abd ul Aziz



In the year 851 A.H. a group of men from AL MASALEEKH CLAN, which was a branch of ANZA Tribe, formed a caravan for buying cereals (wheat and corn) and other food stuff from IRAQ, and transporting it back to NAJD. The head of that group was a man called SAHMI BIN HATHLOOL. The caravan reached BASRA, where the members of the group went to a cereal merchant who was a Jew, Called MORDAKHAI BIN IBRAHIM BIN MOSHE'.

During their bargaining with that merchant, the Jew asked them : "Where are you from?" They answered: "From ANZA TRIBE; a clan of AL MASALEEKH." Upon hearing that name, the Jew started to hug so affectionately each one of them saying that he, himself, was also from the clan of AL MASALEEKH, but he had come to reside in BASRA (IRAQ) in consequence to a family feud between his father and some members of ANZA Tribe.

After he recounted to them his fabricated narrative, he ordered his servants to load all the camels of the clan's members with wheat, dates and tamman; a remarkable deed so generous that astonished the MASALEEKH men and aroused their pride to find such an affectionate (cousin) in IRAQ- the source of their sustenance; they believed each word he said , and , because he was a rich merchant of the food commodities which they were badly in need, they liked him (even though he was a Jew concealed under the garb of an Arab from AL MASALEEKH clan).

When the caravan was ready to depart returning to NAJD, that Jewish Merchant asked them to accept his company, because he intended to go with them to his original homeland, NAJD. Upon hearing that from him, they wholeheartedly welcomed him with a very cheerful attitude.

So that (concealed) Jew reached NAJD with the caravan. In NAJD, he started to promulgate a lot of propaganda for himself through his companions (his alleged cousins), a fact, which gathered around him a considerable number of new supporters; but, unexpectedly, he confronted a campaign of opposition to his views led by SHEIKH SALEH SALMAN ABDULLA AL TAMIMI, who was a Muslim religious preacher in AL-QASEEM. The radius of his preaching area included Najd, Yemen, and Hijaz, a fact which compelled the Jew (the Ancestor of the present SAUDI FAMILY to depart from AL QASEEM to AL IHSA, where he changed his name (MORDAKHAI) To MARKHAN BIN IBRAHIM MUSA. Then he changed the location of his residence and settled at a place called DIR'IYA near AL-QATEEF, where he started to spread among the inhabitants a fabricated story about the shield of our Prophet MOHAMMAD (p.b.u.h), that it was taken as a booty by an Arab Pagan in consequence of OHOD Battle between the Arab pagans and the Muslems. "That shield, he said, was sold by the Arab Pagan to a Jewish Clan called BANU QUNAIQA' who preserved it as a treasure!

He gradually enhanced his position among the Bedouins through such stories which indicated how the Jewish clans in Arabia were so influential and deserved high esteem. He gained some personal importance among the Bedouins, and decided to settle permanently there, at DIR'IYA town, near AL QATEEF, which he decided to be his (Capital) on the Persian Gulf. He aspired to make it his spring board for establishing a Jewish Kingdom in Arabia.





In order to fulfill his ambitious scheme, he started to approach the desert Arab Bedouins for support of his position, them gradually, he declared himself as their king!

At that juncture, AJAMAN Tribe together with BANU KHALED Tribe became fully aware of that Jewish cunning plan after they had verified his true identity, and decided to put an end to him. They attacked his town and conquered it, but before arresting him he had escaped by the skin of his teeth.

That Jewish Ancestor of the SAUDI FAMILY, (MORDAKHAI), sought shelter in a farm called at that time AL-MALIBEED-GHUSAIBA near AL-ARID, which is called at our present time : AL-RIYADH.

He requested the owner of that farm to grant him an asylum. The farmer was so hospitable that he immediately gave him sanctuary. But that Jew (MORDAKHAI), no longer than a month had he stayed there, when he assassinated the land lord and all members of his family, pretending that all were killed by an invading band of thieves. Then he pretended that he had bought that real estate from them before that catastrophe happened to them! Accordingly, he had the right to reside there as a land lord. He then gave a new name to that place: He named it AL-DIRIYA - the same name as that he had lost.

That Jewish Ancestor of the SAUDI FAMILY (MORDAKHAI), was quick to establish a "GUEST HOUSE" called "MADAFFA" on the land he usurped from his victims, and gathered around him a group of hypocrites who started to spread out false propaganda for him that he was a prominent Arab Sheikh. He plotted against Sheikh SALEH SALMAN ABDULLA AL TAMIMI, his original enemy, and caused his assassination in the mosque of the town called (AL-ZALAFI).

After that, he felt satisfied and safe to make (AL-DIRIYA) his permanent home. There he practiced polygamy at a wide scale, and indeed, he begot a lot of children whom he gave pure Arab names.

Eversince his descendants grew up in number and power under the name of SAUDI CLAN, they have followed his steps in practicing under ground activities and conspiracies against the Arab Nation. They illegally seized rural sectors and farm lands, and assassinated every person who tried to oppose their evil plans. They used all kinds of deceit for reaching their goals: they bought the conscience of their dissidents; they offered their women and money to influential people in that area, particularly to those who started to write the true biography of that Jewish Family; they bribed writers of history in order to purify their ignominious history, and make their lineage related to the most prominent Arab Tribes such as RABI'A, ANZA and ALMASALEEKH.

A conspicuous hypocrite in our era whose name is MOHAMMAD AMIN AL TAMIMI- Director/Manager of the contemporary Libraries of the SAUDI KINGDOM, made up a genealogical tree (FAMILY TREE) for this JEWISH FAMILY (THE SAUDIS), connecting them to our Great Prophet, MOHAMMAD (P.B.U.H) For his false work, he received a reward of 35 (THIRTY FIVE) THOUSAND EYPTIAN POUNDS from the then SAUDI AMBASSADOR TO CAIRO, EGYPT, in the year 1362 AH.- 1943 A.D. The name of that Ambassador is : IBRAHIM AL-FADEL.

As aforementioned, the Jewish Ancestor of the SAUDI FAMILY, (MORDAKHAI), practiced polygamy by marrying a lot of Arab women and begot many children; his polygamous practice is, at the present time, being carried out " to the letter" by his descendants; they cling to his marital heritage!

One of MORDAKHAI'S sons called AL-MAQARAN, arabized from the Jewish root (MACK-REN) begot a son called Mohammad, then another son called SAUD, which is the name of the present day SAUDI DYNASTY.

Descendants of SAUD (the present day SAUDI FAMILY )started a campaign of assassination of the prominent leaders of the Arab Tribes under the pretence that those leaders were apostates; renegading from the Islamic Religion, and deserting their Koranic doctrines; so they deserved the SAUDI condemnation and slaughter!

In the History Book of the SAUDI FAMILY pages (98-101), their private family historian declares that the SAUDI DYNASTY considers all the people of NAJD blasphemous; so their blood must be shed, their properties confiscated, and their females be taken as concubines; no muslem is authentic in his /her belief unless he/she belongs (affiliates) to the sect of MOHAMMAD BIN ABDUL WAHAB, (whose origins are also Jewish from TURKEY.) His doctrines give authority to the SAUDI FAMILY to destroy the villages with all their inhabitants-males including children, and to sexually assault their women; stab the bellies of the pregnant, and cut off the hands of their children, then burn them! They are further authorized by such a BRUTAL DOCTRINE to plunder all the properties of whom they call renegades (not following their Wahabi Sect).



Their hideous Jewish Family has, in fact, done all that kind of atrocities in the name of their false religious sect (the Wahabi), which has actually been invented by a Jew so as to sow the seeds of terror in the hearts of people in towns and villages. This Jewish Dynasty has been committing such brutal atrocities eversince 1163 A.H. They have named the whole Arabian Peninsula after their family name (SAUDI ARABIA) as if the whole region is their own personal real estate, and that all other inhabitants are their mere servants or slaves, toiling day and night for the pleasure of their masters (THE SAUDI FAMILY).

They are completely holding the natural wealth of the country as their own property. If any poor person from the common people raises his/her voice complaining against any of the despotic rules of this Jewish Dynasty, (the Dynasty) cuts off his/her head in the public square. A princess of theirs once visited FLORIDA, USA, with her retinue; she rented 90 (NINETY) Suite rooms in a Grand Hotel for about One Million Dollars a night! Can anyone of their subjects comment about that extravagant event If he/she does, his/her fate is quite known: DEATH WITH THE EDGE OF THE SAUDI SWORD IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE!!!!!!

Witnesses on the Jewish Ancestry of this Saudi Family:
In the 1960's the "SAWT AL ARAB" Broadcasting Station in Cairo, Egypt, and the YEMEN Broadcasting Station in SANA'A confirmed the Jewish Ancestry of the SAUDI Family.

King FAISAL AL-SAUD at that time could not deny his family's kindred with the JEWS when he declared to the WASHINGTON POST on Sept. 17, 1969 stating: "WE, THE SAUDI FAMILY, are cousins of the Jews: we entirely disagree with any Arab or Muslem Authority which shows any antagonism to the Jews; but we must live together with them in peace. Our country (ARABIA) is the Fountain head from where the first Jew sprang, and his descendants spread out all over the world." That was the declaration of KING FAISAL AL-SAUD BIN ABDUL AZIZ!!!!!

HAFEZ WAHBI, The SAUDI Legal Adviser, mentioned in his book entitled: "THE PENINSULA OF ARABIA" that KING ABDUL AZIZ AL-SAUD, who died in 1953, had said : "Our Message (SAUDI MESSAGE) encountered the opposition of all Arab Tribes; my grandfather, SAUD AWAL, once imprisoned a number of the Sheikhs of MATHEER Tribe; and when another group of the same tribe came to intercede for the release of the prisoners, SAUD AWAL gave orders to his men to cut off the heads of all the prisoners, then, he wanted to humiliate and derogate the interceders by inviting them to eat from a banquet he prepared from the cooked flesh of his victims whose cut off heads he placed on the top of the food platters!! The interceders became so alarmed and declined to eat the flesh of their relatives; and, because of their refusal to eat, he ordered his men to cut off their heads too. That hideous crime was committed by that self imposed king to innocent people whose guilt was their opposition to his most cruel and extremely despotic rules.

HAFEZ WAHBI, states further that King ABDUL AZIZ AL-SAUD related that bloody true story to the Sheikhs of the MATHEER Tribe, who visited him in order to intercede for their prominent leader at that time, FAISAL AL DARWEESH, who was the king's prisoner. He related that story to them in order to prevent them from interceding for the release of their Sheikh; otherwise, they would face the same fate; He killed the Sheikh and used his blood as an ablution liquid for him just before he stood up for his prayer (after the false sect doctrine of the Wahabi); The guilt of FAISAL DARWEESH at that time was that he had criticized King ABDUL AZIZ AL-SAUD when the king signed the document which the English Authorities prepared in 1922 as a declaration for giving PALESTINE to the Jews; his signature was obtained in the conference held at AL AQEER in 1922.

That was and still is the system of this Regime of the JEWISH FAMILY (SAUDI FAMILY): All its goals are : plundering the wealth of the country, robbing, falsifying, and committing all kinds of atrocity, iniquity, and blasphemy-all are executed in compliance with their self invented Wahabi Sect which legalizes the chopping of the heads of their opposing subjects.

Brief synopsis about the leading Saudi figures

King Abdel Aziz:




also known as Ibn Saud. King Abdul Aziz is the father of King Fahd and 44 other sons. Abdul Aziz united Saudi Arabia with the sword. A savage bedouin whose self gratification, war after war, was to taste the blood of those he killed. During the early twentieth century, he offered his services to the Ottoman empire and was rejected by the Turks as unreliable and uncivilized. The British, during the same period, were looking to increase their sphere of influence in Arabia, and saw in Ibn Saud the unruly, savage warrior they were looking for to control Arabia for them. They financed him and protected him to deliver Arabia to them. Among the many of the ruling families during that period : The Hashemites (King Hussein of Jordan), the Rasheeds (trading respected family from Saudi Arabia) and the Idrisses were all unwilling to deal with the British empire after World War I on the British terms. The British found in Abdul Aziz a willing bandit they could rely on to conquer and preserve their interests. Since Abdul Aziz was a Wahhabi, he encouraged Fundamentalism to create fear in the various tribes he was trying to unite. Little did he and King Fahd after him know that fundamentalism has grown to become more than a politically oriented idealogy but a way of life.

King Fahd bin Abdel Aziz:



The corrupt members of Al-Saud Family are many. It is not easy to assemble facts on all of them with total accuracy, however, the most corrupt of them all and master of all masters is none other than the King himself. King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz. Absolute power over Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the Saudi government. He is the judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, and executioner. Having total power, he has, with other members of his family, emptied the coffers of the government. Today, Saudi Arabia is bankrupt and has a very grim economic future because of his policies and lack of vision.
More about this king and his dark history of corruption and waste in future articles to come...

Prince Sultan bin Abdel Aziz:

Third in command of the country but no less corrupt than King Fahd is Sultan bin Abdul Aziz who has four titles all with the intent to retain power and to rob the country. He is the Deputy Crown Prince, Minister of Defense, Chairman of Saudia Airlines, and the Inspector General of the country of Saudi Arabia. Imagine being the fox watching over the chicken hen !! Minister of Defense and Inspector General. This is like having the head of the largest chemical company head also the Environmental Protection Agency. What a joke. Sultan is known for his sexual deviation including penophily. He maintains several bordellos for his own pleasures in Saudi Arabia and abroad.


Prince Muhammed bin Fahd:




Eldest son of King Fahd, Mohammad bin Fahd was exposed to corruption early on. With the blessings of his father, Mohammad has stolen government funds through large telecommunications projects. Telephone deals, cellular deals, equipment, etc... His wealth is valued at close to $5 billion mostly amassed during the heydays of the late seventies and early eighties. His father assigned a government post after he pilfered through business deals. Today, he is the governor of the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia where 25% of the oil world reserves lie. His father wants him to become the Crown Prince and Bandar bin Sultan the new Defense Minister.



Prince Faisal bin Fahd:


If a classroom had to write a thesis on al-Saud Family, Faisal bin Fahd would win the award for the imbecile of the family. Stupidly stubborn and unmistakably foolish, Faisal has spent his life in pursuit of two things : drugs and women. He gets his drugs from Lebanon through his business associates and his women from Europe following the same trail of contacts. This is a man who has never done anything right, good, or useful in his life. His father, King Fahd, appointed him as the head of all youth sports programs. One must be sick to appoint a well known drug addict to be head of all youth programs. This is like hiring a child molester as your Kindergarten teacher.


Prince Abdel Aziz bin Fahd:


The youngest son of King Fahd, Abdul Aziz is a 24 year old child who is the most protected child on earth. Born to an astute mother, King Fahd was duped into believing that if he took his son everywhere, he will never be assassinated (like King Faisal). So Abdul Aziz was born with a golden spoon in his mouth. This is a kid who is so spoiled and so protected that he has never known pain, physical, moral or emotional. People that are close to him say that he is unremarkable and vain. When his father had a heart attack in November of 1995, he bequested him $10 billion of his personal fortune. The money was transferred to Abdul Aziz accounts at Credit Suisse and Union de Banques Suisses in Geneva and Zurich with the help of Khaled al-Ibrahim, his uncle.


Prince Bandar bin Sultan:


The most ignorant and dangerous of the newcomers to the scene of politics. Bandar is the unofficial son of Sultan (See the full story below). For those who do not know him, Bandar is a murderer (he financed and approved the planting of a bomb in Beirut that killed 80 innocent women and children), a liar (Washington and his fellow Ambassadors know him well), a thief (ask Mrrs. Saeed Karma and Wafic Saeed in London), and a back stabber all in one. He also happens to be the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States since 1984, a side job considering that he spends his time plotting and stealing. His friends are few and his enemies are many. His dream is to return to power in Saudi Arabia jumping over Princes Naef and Salman. His uncle King Fahd is helping him achieve that goal. Once King Fahd dies, Bandar will lose all his powers. Bandar despises anyone who has more money than he does or is more respected than he is, mainly Prince Saud bin Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs who is highly respected, Prince Mohammad bin Fahd who is richer than he is, and lately Prince Walid bin Talal, the businessman wiz who has, unlike any of the al-Saud House members, made money rather than steal it.


Prince Khalid bin Sultan:


If one had to describe this big ugly huggable bear, the best description will have to be the quote provided anonymousely by General Schwarzkopf staff during the Gulf war : "When it comes to military knowhow, he gets a C minus.When it comes to bravery, he gets a D. When it comes to intelligence, he gets a D minus. Other than that, he is OK". This is the man who provided water and food to the Desert Storm troops through a contractual agreement with the government of Saudi Arabia. This contract alone made him $2 billion in commissions. After the war, he claimed that he was behind the victory of Desert Storm. Needless to say that he has been exiled to London where he has written a self-promoting book that exuded his intelligence and understanding of military operations. Even Prince Sultan wishes he never had that son. Today, he spends his time trying to impress Europeans and Americans alike through social activities. He is totally ignored except for those who benefit directly and indirectly from the crums of his money.


Prince Naef bin Abdel Aziz:


Minister of Interior and head of internal security, he is known for his cowardice. During the Mecca uprising by Jumaiha al-Otaibi, Naef fleed the Ministry to hide underground. It took a long time for him to recover. Naef oversees a large budget of which 40% a year goes to pay for bribes, kickbacks, and fixed contracts for himself and his sons. His weakness helped extremist elements in Saudi Arabia plant a bomb in Riyadh that killed five Americans. He spends most of his time overlooking a bloated bureaucracy that blocks his vision when it comes to the security of the country. His incompetency is never questioned as he is another Sudeiri. His younger brother Salman has made it clear that he will jump Naef to the throne when the right time comes.


Prince Saud bin Naef:


is the son of the Interior Minister. Here we have the typical son of a Sudeiri who steels from the government and then looses it all through rsiky businesses and pure stupidty. In fact, he is so financially overstretched that he is unable to maintain payments and obligations which means very little for him since he does not admit any obligations or knowledge of debts. A typical true business deal for Saud bin Naef is when he invested millions to build car inspection stations all over Saudi Arabia. After he built them, he went to his father seeking a royal decree that all 5 million plus cars in Saudi Arabia must be inspected annually by a certified inspection station. And the company that got immediate certification is none other than the one he put together prior to the decree. Saud bin Naef is a small government within a government charging people hundreds of Riyals a year to have their car inspected and then loosing it all somewhere else. How did the government of Saudi Arabia go bankrupt ?


Prince Salman bin Abdel Aziz:


As Governor of Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdul Aziz wears many hats. He is the strongman of Saudi Arabia and heading fast to the throne. In the last year, Salman has met with major Jewish organizations in the US to dispel the rumors that he is anti-semitic and supports Israel in its push for peace. His message was met with skeptisism according to people who have arranged the meetings to take place. Salman is as corrupt as any of his brothers and has amassed his fortunes by appropriating vast lands from the government and then selling it back to the government for whatever he needed to cover the expensive lifestyle he maintains. Salman has been instrumental in advising Fahd on procedural issues regarding the future of the seven brothers in light of Prince Abdullah taking over the throne upon the imminent death of King Fahd. But lately, King Fahd has been ignoring him totally by advancing his son Mohammad and Bandar bin Sultan to the throne.



Mohammad bin Fahd Bin Abdel Aziz



Fifty-year-old Prince Mohammad is the second son of King Fahd. He is the governor of the oil-rich eastern province, the most visible of his brothers and a secret pretender to the Saudi throne. Simultaneously, he has been involved in more shady business pay-offs at home, moral and business scandals abroad and political negligence than the younger princes of his generation.

Mohammad's qualifications are vague; a high school degree from California. His ascendancy over his older brother Faisal owes more to the latter's lack of character than to Mohammad's talents. Faisal has been disqualified from fatherly attention for indulging in drink and drugs and the writer Peler Theroux (Sandstorm) has accused him to murdering his male lover. Mohammad stepped into the number one spot by default. Pay-offs at home take place through Mohammad's Al Bilad and United Arab Helicopter companies, but Mohammad's business interests were never limited to them. In fact, as we will see, companies were created to deal with huge individual contracts and dissolved after the illegal deal was concluded.

The biggest scandal conducted under the cover of a company of convenience was exposed by the Guardian and Wall Street Journal newspapers in November 1980. A Japanese company called Petrmonde was buying 140.000 barrels of oil a day from ARAMCO at $32 a berrel. However, close examination revealed the following: the company was paying $34.63 a barrel and the differential amounted to $368.000 a day ($135 million a year), the company was not Japanese but London-based and headquartered at the Al Bilad offices and the difference in price was pocketed by Mohammad. Occurring as it did during the Iran-Iraq War, a period of tight oil supplies, the deal infuriated the American oil companies which put pressure on ARAMCO and brought the arrangement to an end. But Mohammad walked away wealthier and though Petromonde disappeared.

A second deal involving Mohammad and Saudi Telecom was an open contract but no less horrific in its scale of corruption. In 1979 international firms were invited to undertake the tripling of the number of Saudi telephone lines from 200.000 to 600.000. The project was so huge, some of the companies transported their offers in pick up trucks, and the value was estimated at somewhere between 6 and 10 billion dollars. The contract was won by a consortium of Philips of Holland, Bell of Canada and Sweden's Erikson and the agent was the Mohammad-owned and operated Al Bilad company. Other contenders for the contract, ITT, Western Electric, Thompson of France and Hitachi, smelt a rat and demanded an investigation. They claimed that their offers were lower and better than those of the winning consortium and tried to reach Mohammad to lodge a protest, but he was not available.

Nor were King Khalid and crown Prince Fahd available to receive American Ambassador William Porter who too tried to protest on behalf of his county's multinationals. Eventually the noise died down, estimates of the Mohammad-Al Bilad commission run as high as 20 per cent or $1.3 billion of the $6.7 billion winning tender. To this day, the maintenance contract for this project, because other contractors have disqualified themselves knowing that they can't win, is with Mohammad and its carries a hefty commission much greater than is acceptable in normal circumstances.

Mohammad's colossal home contracts didn't stop him from misbehaving abroad. Among others, he had established connections with British MP and one time Under Secretary of Defence Jonathan Aitken. The British politician appears to have used Mohammed's Al Bilad London offices free of charge and there have been allegations, so far unrefuted, that Mohammad and Aitken have conspired to sell arms to Singapore which eventually found their way to Iran at a time when such sales were prohibited.

Moreover, in 1981, the News of The World newspaper reported an incident involving Mohammad and a London girl for hire. His Highness appears to have roughed up the girl and escaped to America after she threatened disclosure. This aspect of Mohammad's character is reported to have more to it and a recent television programme has accused Aitken of procuring for Royals and implied that Mohammad was involved.

Most recently, during the Gulf War, Mohammad was accused of realizing hundreds of millions of dollars in profit from housing and feeding American troops sent to Saudi Arabia to protect it against Saddam Hussein. Housing these troops meant building temporary accommodations on public land confiscated by Mohammad specifically for that purpose. Feeding them, ordinarily a simple operation, found some of Mohammad's open or de facto companies charging exorbitant rates to provide them with everyday provision. It is estimated that Mohammad's profits out of this were $28 per soldier, per day, If the number of soldiers was 500.000 then it adds up per diem $14.000.000. If Mohammad's business deals make corrupt financial sense then his political qualifications are totally absent. His first appointment to an official position was as assistant to the Minister of Interior, and there is very little to report about that. Later, in 1985, he was appointed Deputy Governor of the Eastern Province and once again it is impossible to judge a performance by its non-existence. Yet later, in 1989, he was appointed to the important post of governor of the same province.

Perhaps the best way to judge his governance is to review his action in 1995. He spent five months away from his post, in Arizona in the United States with his ailing mother. During that period nothing was done, no one dared make any decisions because everything is in Mohammad's hands. Upon his return, he was confronted with the problem of what to do to implement promises made to the Shias of this province in return for making peace with the house of Saud.

The Situations in the Eastern Province continues to deteriorate, Mohammad shows no interest in the affairs of the state, his business activities continue unabated despite the overall reduction in the oil income of the country and his personal behavior is as abominable as ever. Yet, this is the star among Fahd's sons, the one his father is thinking of making King, supposedly the symbol of a new generation to replace the old discredited one.



Nayef bin Abd-al-Aziz



63 years old, Minister of the Interior. Since taking over the Ministry of Interior in 1975, Prince Nayef has been subjected to national and international attention owing to occurrences of repression and scandals. More recently he has been in the limelight for his heavy-handed clampdown against the alleged authors of the two anti-American bombings which took place in November 1995 in Riyadh and June 1996 in al-Khubar. Unfortunately, his harsh repressive stance has been closely linked to corruption and murky dealings, like most of the members of the House of Saud. Yet, initially the man was not, to use an understatement, as irresponsible as he is today. Who is Nayef bin Abd-al-Aziz? Born in 1933, Nayef is the third son of Hussa bint Ahmad al-Sudeiri, one of the seven Sudeiri brothers. He obtained his first degree in the Kingdom, but is not particularly bright intellectually, nor is he considered to be well educated. However, an honorary doctorate was conferred upon him by South Korea in 1979.


Good man turned evil:


Nayef is one of those strange human beings that mankind has known throughout the centuries. He was a calm man, who always avoided making hasty decisions in matters which committed the reputation of his ministry and himself. He used to comport himself with good manners and deference, earning himself respect and consideration amongst important personalities in society, amongst politicians and even diplomats. He maintained particularly good relations with the ulama and the religious institutions. But one day, in 1991, there was a certain Gulf War and the man turned evil almost overnight. He is known to have spoken in a way which does not befit an ordinary man, let alone his office as Minister of the Interior.


The appointment and promotion:


In 1951 he was given his first ever appointment as Deputy Governor of Riyadh from which he became Governor in 1953 only to cede it to Prince Fawaz a year later. From then on he did not assume any responsibility in public service until 1971 when his elder brother (Interior Minister Fahd) appointed him as his Deputy. Four years later, after the assassination of King Faisal in 1975, he eventually became Interior Minister himself. Twenty one years later, he is still head of this ministry and his record is indeed impressive.


Sudeiris tighten grip on power:


The Sudeiris reached the highest positions of the State when Faisal took over as King in 1962. Fahd was given the Interior, Sultan the Defence and Salman the Governorate of Riyadh. The appointment of Nayef as Deputy Interior Minister in 1971 was seen as a move which reinforced the grip of the Sudeiris on the State machinery. When he took full charge of the Ministry in 1975, Nayef, in turn, appointed his younger brother Ahmad as his deputy with whom he has since planned and executed the ministry's policies.


Importance of the Interior Ministry:


As Interior Minister, Nayef was granted important prerogatives following the demise of King Faisal. These were to gradually increase year by year, thereby emphasising the importance of the Interior Ministry in the strategy of the House of Saud of holding onto power.

The Interior Ministry has usually been seen as the bridge to the supreme office, as the cases of King Faisal and King Fahd demonstrate. Since its inception, the post has respectively been held by Prince Faisal before he became King, Musa id bin Abd-al-Rahman Al-Saud, Abd-al-Muhsin bin Abd-al-Aziz, Faisal bin Turki bin Abd-al-Aziz, Fahd and finally Nayef. Moreover, a great many lesser princes have been employed by the ministry throughout the Arabian provinces and emirates, which indicate yet again the extent of the House of Saud's grip on the country. The Interior Ministry's importance comes from the fact that it controls the policing of the population through the security services; the borders and coasts through the Borders and Coast Guards and the tribes through the so-called Mujahidin Forces. Under Nayef, and among its prominent services are the Special Police Forces, who have became notorious of late and the Anti-terrorist Squad.

One of the features of Nayef's authority, is that all civilian services within the country's provinces report directly to his ministry even if they are attached to other ministries. This is another strategic method by which the House of Saud foils possible unrest and uncovers any activity deemed suspicious. This prerogative has enabled Nayef to infringe upon the authority of the Minister of Justice as Nayef is able to control the proceedings of scores of courts, especially those dealing with political activity.

Another aspect of Nayef s prerogatives is his overall control of the media. The Supreme Information Council, set up in 1977, paradoxically comes under his authority instead of that of the Ministry of Information, which once more underlines the repressive character of the regime. Even the Foreign Ministry's Information Department was integrated into this council which has become the initiator of both internal and external information policy. In the wake of the 1979 revolt inside the Sacred Mosque in Makka, Prince Nayef was given unlimited power over the audio-visual and written press. Under the notorious March 1980 Decree no. 78, Nayef appointed a representative of his Ministry to monitor the activities of newsmen whom he forced to practice self-censorship.

In the field of human rights Nayef has always ignored the requests of human rights organizations regarding the rights of political prisoners for fair trials, and has even undertaken media campaigns against them in an attempt to belittle their importance. In the recent trials of defendants charged in connection with the Riyadh and al-Khobar anti-American bombings, Nayef himself oversaw the proceedings and is reported to have personally interrogated the accused, while circulating rumours that they were ShiÕa dissidents rather than an armed opposition to the Saud oligarchy. As a prince belonging to the family of King Abd-al-Aziz, Nayef is annually entitled to a remuneration of $100 million.

He also has a quota of oil which accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to a quota of royal lands which he resells. He is also known to have confiscated land for his own benefit claiming that it was for security reasons. Meanwhile he is rumoured to be involved in the sale of drugs and alcohol for which he receives a commission.

In the meantime, one of his wives, Maha Sudeiri, is known to dominate him and actually makes decisions in his place at the Interior Ministry, which has led to persistent abuses of power. The victims are the ordinary people. Also, her misbehaviour abroad was such that an American television stations in Florida broadcast a film about her. Her attitude caused great embarrassment to the House of Saud who kept urging Nayef to divorce her, but in vain.

As the fourth key personality of the regime (after the King, the Heir Apparent and the Defence Minister), Nayef has an eye on the highest office, but so has his elder brother, Sultan and younger brother, Salman. This situation has created a rift between the Sudeiris, although this has so far been kept under control. But for how long? And would this diminish Crown Prince Abdallah's chances of succeeding the ailing King Fahd?



Sultan bin Abdel Aziz



SULTAN, the Defence Minister and son of King Abdul Aziz, was born in 1924. He is one the Sudeiri Seven, the full brothers of King Fahd. He is second in line to the Saudi throne.


Ambitions of a would-be Dictator:


Sultan rose to fame when he was appointed Governor of Riyadh, the capital city. But he became more powerful when he was appointed Defence Minister in 1964, a post which he still holds. Worse than this, within the Sudeiri family's relentless endeavour to secure monopoly of power, Sultan gradually acquired many other important posts in addition to the defence ministry. He is now the Deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers, the Government's General Inspector, Head of the Higher Education Council, Head of the Higher Council for Islamic Affairs and, last but not least, Head of the Higher Labour Council. These were only his most important responsibilities.

Sultan has nurtured his ambition to succeed King Fahd and this ambition has become even more apparent since Fahd's health has degenerated irremediably over the last year. But his half-brother, heir apparent Prince Abdullah, is next to succeed King Fahd under Saudi succession law which reserves the right to succession to the most senior prince. The fact that the dejure successor is Crown Prince Abdullah, is for Sultan and his six Sudeiri brothers, a great obstacle.


Low IQ blamed for violent behaviour:


Sultan is known for his manichean classification of people as masters and slaves. The best example is his long-standing, irrational determination to disown his own son Bandar, son of a slave woman, for fear that he might become a slave. He refrained from doing so only after King Faisal's intervention. But fate decreed that Bandar became an educated person, and is the Kingdom's Ambassador to Washington, while Sultan's other sons have inherited their father's undesirable traits. His class mentality expresses itself in his attitude towards the respected men of the nation and its scholars on whom he bestows derogatory nicknames.

Among the members of the House of Saud, Sultan shines with ignorance. He had little formal education and acquired his present fame only on account of his family name. Those who know him testify that his knowledge and experience does not exceed the fields of repression, wealth plundering and moral perversion. Despite his oratory style he is known to make regular blunders in speeches. For example, when addressing the inhabitants of Jizan (a part of the Kingdom) he began by conveying to them the regards of the people of Arabia, a statement that made him the laughing-stock of the whole country.

Such behaviour stems from his inferiority complex which partly explains why he is the most zealous opponent of education. But at another level, Sultan believes that educating people paves the way for awareness and thus the questioning of the House of Saud's dictatorship. In the past he took a strong stand against educational development projects. When the Islamic reformist movement inaugurated its period of political questioning in the nineties, through the scholars memoranda for reform, Sultan felt a malicious pleasure to tell his ruling brothers you did this yourselves when you allowed them to get educated.

The man is not renowned for his capability to deal with problems using hindsight, calmness, wisdom, argument and dialogue worthy of any respectful political leader. Lacking all of these qualities has given him an inferiority complex which impels him to resort to force and violence in order to deal with any political opposition.


A threat to the Kingdom:


The 1994 clampdown against reformist scholars took place too late as far as he was concerned. If it had been up to him, and if King Fahd had not feared social unrest, he would have led the crackdown years earlier. In any case, reliable sources within the regime told MIRA that Sultan was the one urging the Sudeiris which led the last two years campaigns against the reformist opposition; he is reported to have personally signed the arrest warrant against Sheikh Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-Awdah. He is also said to have taken steps with the judicial authorities to obtain a series of immediate executions against the Muslim reformists and only backed down after being advised of the untold social unrest that such executions would entail.

His violent attitude and disrespect is unwisely directed even at people whose loyalty is important to him. He is known to be deeply unpopular in the armed forces that he heads. On the advice of foreign powers, he retires officers early and rotates them frequently for security reasons. Meanwhile, he is known to be very abusive to the high-ranking officers he commands and to whom he is supposed to be a role model. In this respect he does not refrain from insulting, hitting and spitting at officers in front of their colleagues. He reportedly humiliated them this way even in the presence of foreign delegations just as a master would do with his slaves.

Psychologists would surely find Sultan very interesting. He has married many times and into different tribes. He allegedly does not even know how many children he has. Dangerous claims have been said about his personal life. Indeed, it has come to the knowledge of the opposition (and unfortunately interested parties outside the Kingdom) that Sultan may have something to hide. Furthermore, according to reports, his psychological condition has been blamed for dubious decisions relating to army promotions, relationships and so on. Also, MIRA has learned that a number of foreign countries and other parties have blackmailed Sultan and the Kingdom through the procurement of material evidence depicting his immoral behaviour. This may explain some of the policies that the Kingdom has adopted in order to suit the political and strategic interests of such countries.

Obviously, from the Islamic point of view this is scandalous as Sultan is the Defence Minister of the country in which there exist the holy shrines of Islam. Furthermore what is striking is not so much his absence of devotion to Islam but his intolerance of practising Muslims. He is reported to have severely beaten one of his new employees. The unfortunate man had ventured to call for prayer at one of his residences (the call being a regular practice, officially enjoyed all over the Kingdom).

As far as corruption is concerned, the Defence Minister is one of the richest multi-billionaires in the world. He has used the defence ministry to amass an untold amount of wealth in the 32 year period he has been at its head. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on the armed forces over this period. Yet it arose that of the total amount spent only 5% was effectively used for the purchase of military hardware and training. It will not be difficult to imagine where the remaining 95% went. Meanwhile the Arabian armed forces humiliated by Sultan himself, ill-equipped and lacking obvious military training were caught unprepared in 1991 by the invading Iraqi army. That the whole episode was a foreign conspiracy is self-evident as far as we are concerned, it remains though that Sultan and his brothers turned the US military assistance into a glorious episode through the manipulation of their subservient media.



Bandar bin Sultan



For those who know him, Bandar has grown up unhappy and deprived of any real fatherly love. His mother was a slave girl of Sudanese origin, which caused his father to steer clear of him. Because of the status of his mother, his father, Defence Minister Sultan has for a long time denied that Bandar was his son. So intense was Sultan's irrational behaviour that he thought that Bandar would grow up with a slave mentality. Sultan only refrained from disowning Bandar as a result of King Faisal's intervention.

Bandar was born in 1950 and, owing to his father's rejection spent most of his childhood with his uncles. He would only meet other members of his family on special occasions such as at gatherings at his aunt Hissa al-Sudeiriyah. He also made good childhood relationships with the Sudeiri children, such as his half brothers Fahd bin Sultan (born in 1953) and Khalid bin Sultan (1949) and also with his cousins Mohammed bin Fahd (1948), Sultan bin Fahd (1951) and Su'ud bin Nayef (1955).

At the insistence of, his now mature child and Bandar's uncles, Sultan eventually agreed to meet Bandar and patched up his relationship with him. To Sultan's surprise, the unwanted child showed a high level of intelligence, which he had developed in the company of the Sudanese in whose company he grew up after being rejected by his other brothers.

Bandar was then sent to attend American schools along with the other Sudeiri children. In 1967, he joined the British Air Force Academy in Cornwall. After his graduation he was sent for further training in American air bases in Texas and in Carolina. At the end of his air force training, Bandar joined John Hopkins University in the United States where he graduated four years later in International Relations and Politics.

Bandar's relations with the United States started under the Presidency of Jimmy Carter where he built up strong ties with Carter's collaborators, Hamilton Jordan and Robert Strauss. He thus, gradually eased himself into the position of intermediary between his country and the American Administration by conveying messages and views between the two sides.

In 1979, during a trip to the United States, Bandar paid a visit to President Jimmy Carter who stressed his country's strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and promised assistance to Riyadh if the Iran-Iraq war threatened the Saudi Kingdom.

Following Iran's initial victories over Iraq and the occupation of part of the Basra area by Iranian troops, the United States sent on 28th September 1981 a delegation to Arabia headed by General David Jones, joint Chief of Staff, to convey to them that the turn of the war was worrying Washington who feared the fall of the House of Saud. The American delegation was welcomed at Dahran Airport by Prince Fahd bin Abdallah and Prince Bandar who was then promoted to the position of commander of a squadron of jet fighters.

The House of Saud, which was already alarmed by Iranian victories over Iraq, enabled Bandar to play a key role in acquiring AWACS radar planes. Requested by Bandar, General David Jones conveyed to the Carter Administration the Saudi need for the AWACS, but the pro-Zionist lobby in Congress opposed the sale of AWACS to an Arab country on the grounds that it this would constitute a threat to Israel.

But months later, the Saudi's felt an even greater need for the AWACS. They needed someone who could convince Washington of such an urgent need and give assurances that the radar planes would not be a threat to the Zionist State. The House of Saud agreed that the man tailor-made for this mission was Bandar, who indeed succeeded and thus, Arabia obtained the American-manned AWACS.

His success earned him the promotion of Ambassador to Washington. Bandar soon became very friendly with the Head of Operations at the CIA who was in charge of contacting foreign diplomatic missions in Washington. He reportedly involved himself in CIA activities and surprised diplomats with lavish parties parties organised by his wife Fiha, daughter of Faisal bin Abdelaziz in defiance to the Kingdom's traditions and moral code.

One of the missions entrusted to Bandar was to find a solution to the Palestinian issue and the recognition of Israel by the Arab States. Being involved with the CIA, Bandar also played a role in the Western Sahara in favour of Morocco in its dispute with Spain. Similarly, he played a role in the Lebanese conflict and was in charge of supplying the Phalangist movement with Saudi arms and armoured vehicles through Port Said and via Malta, but his plan was frustrated when the Maltese authorities intercepted the ship.

In the Lebanon hostage crisis he stated to Al-Sharq al-Awsat (25/02/85) that he was making every effort to obtain the release of the hostages. In Sudan, he intervened on the side of the separatists of the South and provided them with financial and medical assistance. His relationship with the CIA led him to becoming entrusted with a mission to assassinate Sheikh Fadlallah of the Lebanese Hisbullah but the bomb intended to kill the man missed its target. Bandar also involved himself in many other murky affairs such as with the Nicaraguan Contras.



Arms Deal



Is the Defence Minister Prince Sultan fond of arms deals because of the cash rewards they bring ? or, has the House of Saud been pressurised into buying American arms for other reasons? At the end of January, there was extensive Press coverage in the United States concerning an accord which stipulated that the Saudi rulers, had in principle, agreed to buy up to one hundred F16 jet fighters for an estimated value of $25 billion - $30 billion. According to an anonymous official who spoke to the press the deal will be signed during a future, but unspecified, visit to Washington by the Saudi Defence Minister.

According to expert sources in the arms trade, the total cost of the fighter planes is just $2.5 billion, whilst the outstanding balance is alleged to cover spare parts and maintenance for the jets and the training of the flight crews !

This deal comes as a surprise for several reasons. To begin with, the Saudi army does not need a new air defence system nor does it even need reinforcement. The Yamama deal with Britain (in the mid-1980's) and the earlier American-bought AWACS and F15 planes more than cover the needs of Arabia's air defence. In addition, none of these planes have ever been used.

What is even more surprising is that the deal comes at a time of dire economic crisis in the Kingdom: The Government's total debt has spiralled to more than $100 billion and if one includes unemployment (already at a staggering 25% of the active population), rising inflation, the rapidly decreasing income level per capita and poor social services, one cannot find any justification for new, very costly and otherwise unwarranted military spending.

It is equally interesting, and curious to say the least, that the deal has come at a time when the Saudi rulers are basically at the mercy of America, with the latter literally occupying Arabia and looting its resources against a background of anti-American guerrilla operations. So, is the deal a mere deal, or does Washington have a few cards up its sleeves which enables it to put a knife to the House of Saud's throats? Moreover, why would Riyadh enter into such a new deal when it has already passed deals with the United States totalling $25 billion and whose payment facility spreads to the year 2,000.

This deal also comes at a critical time in the bitter dispute between the different members of the House of Saud over the succession to King Fahd. However, if, as it appears, such a deal does not worry the Americans it is possible that they are already certain of who the eventual victor in the succession conflict will be.

Another reason to be vigilant remains that the leaks concerning the arms deal follow shortly after the FBI's Director Louis Freeh's angry outburst about the Saudi rulers' secretive approach to the inquiry over the anti-American bomb attack at al-Khobar on 25th June last year. At a meeting with Washington Post staff, he expressed his frustration about the lack of Saudi cooperation. The Attorney General, Janet Renois, also made a similar statement on the same day. Was this a coincidence, or did these two officials have the green light to do so for other reasons ? What is clear is that not only will this arms deal cause even further financial hardship for the Arabian people, but that it may also have serious consequences for America too.

So what are the possible motives behind this deal. Could it possibly be that the Saudi rulers are trying to placate the Americans after having lied to, and embarrassed the Americans about the authors of the Khobar attack ? Or, on the contrary, is the US Administration raising the stakes by using the FBI's Director's angry remarks to strategically secure more leverage over the House of Saud by forcing the deal through?

In our view, the deal is not being used to boost the Kingdom's air defence, nor is it an attempt by Riyadh to placate the Americans in the Khobar bombing affair. Simple though the explanation may be, it appears as if the Defence Minister Prince Sultan believes that he will again make a huge commission on the deal as he did on the Yamama deal with Britain which was revealed by the British press at the time. Clearly his highness has not learnt his lesson.

As mentioned, experts in the Arm's trade have calculated that out of the total amount of $25 - $30 billion spent on the deal, only $2.5 billion is for the actual purchase of the F16 fighter jets. It is, therefore, totally inconceivable that the remaining $22.5 - $27.5 billion is for spare parts, training and maintenance. The reality, (which is now common knowledge) is to be paid in commission to the Sultan himself, his son Bandar and other close advisors and intermediaries such as arms dealers.

This deal will further strain the Kingdom's economy, and thereby generate not only more hardship for the Saudi population but further anti-government and anti-American feeling. Undoubtedly, it could lead to increased anti-American violence.

US press comments, however, gave numerous reasons as to why the deal should not go through. It was argued that if such enormous funds were available to the Saudis, then they would do better to alleviate the population's suffering by spending the amount on much needed social services. The US Press underlined the point that the Saudi economy could not support such expenditure, and noted that America would, by agreeing to this deal, undermine, and thus jeopardise the very stability of the pro-American Kingdom.

Such comments do point to a new awareness in America concerning the dangerous policy Washington is following towards Arabia. But this awareness does not stem from a novel, altruistic notion following on from the Vietnamese, Lebanese and Somali experiences, as unfortunately, it has needed two bomb attacks targeting US military installations in Arabia to drive home to the Americans that perhaps their country is easing itself into yet another quagmire. But still, some decision-makers in the Clinton Administration stubbornly seek to mortgage Arabia's oil for generations to come; so that if any political shift occurs in Arabia which questions the US domination of the Kingdom's oil resources, then the United States could invoke international law in order to justify a military intervention. In other words, it looks as if Washington is paving the way for the law of the jungle in Arabia, thus inaugurating what Chomsky called the new world disorder.



Khalid bin Sultan Bin Abdel Aziz




Lineage:


Prince Khalid bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz. Must be known to many people. During the second Gulf war, he came on the news repeatedly due to his involvement in the war and because of the many gaffes he made. The Americans fought the anti-Iraqi war, but Khalid alleged that he won it He is the son of Defence Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz and of Laila bint Ahmad Abdallah bin Uthman, sister of the late King Fasals wife Iffat al Thaniyan. He was born on 23rd September 1949 in Makkah and studied at the King Saud School for princes in Riyadh. Unlike his half brother Bandar, whose mother was a slave girl, Khalid was the subject of much attention from his father who saw in him his successor at the head of the Defence Ministry.


Education:


At a very young age, he was sent to train at Sandhursts military academy in Britain from where he graduated in 1967. He was then sent to Fort Pills in Texas for advanced training in air defence. He is said to have completed an MA in military Sciences at Fort Lefnort military Academy (Kansas City) in 1979. Meanwhile, he is alleged to have joined the Maxwell Air Warfare Academy in Alabama in 1980 and, strange though it may seem, he is officially reported to have carried, at the same time, yet another MA in Administrative and Political Sciences at Montgomery University, Alabama, only one year after the previous MA. Some people do have an extraordinary IQ and time.

In any case, back in Arabia, he was promoted very swiftly. He successively occupied the positions of Air Squadron Chief, Training Officer/ Assistant Staff Officer for Operations, Army Inspectorate Chief. Director of the Administration of Air Defence Projects, Deputy Chief of the Air Force, Chief of Air Defence and, to crown it all, Chief of the Strategic Missiles Force.


Quest of Notoriety:


Prince Khalid was in the shadow during his studies and while in the various offices he occupied. His urge to become known nationally and to be heard of internationally led him to do what the other Gulf princes normally do, that is to give an astonishing donation to save a westerner in danger of death. Khalid did just that when he offered a huge amount of money to an American child who needed a heart and kidneys transplant. He announced this sensational news in front of an American television crew during a holiday in the Bermudas.

But Khalid came to notoriety through his dealings with the London-based arms merchant Mohammad Wafiq al-Said. Arms deals involving Defence Minister Sultan and his sons made Wafiq al-Said a billionaire and Khalid the same. The first deal in which Khalid was involved alongside al-Said appears to have been the purchase of administrative equipment for an air defence system, bought from France in January 1984a deal which was, at that time, the biggest arms deal the French had ever made.

The commissions made on the it were to the tune of $750 million, with $300 million taken by Prince Khalid alone. Khalid also shared with his father, his brother Bandar, al-Said and others, a two billion dollar deal for the purchase of 10 Boeing transport planes and their spare parts for Saudia Airlines in 1984 (Sunday Times 5/8/84). During the scandal over the £20 billion Yamama deal with Britain in 1984, Khalid was mentioned in the international press as being involved in the commissions which reportedly reached half the total of the cost of only the Tornado jets side of the Yamama deal. Witnessing before an American civil court, a former head of the British Arms Company, Gerald James said that each Tornado was sold to the Saudis for £40 million whereas the standard price is only £20-22 million.

Another nine billion dollar deal with American for the supply of F15 fighter jets was reported in the international press as having a real value of four billion dollars. Khalid was again quoted as having pocketed a share of the remaining five billion dollar commission alongside his father, brothers, King Fahd and the usual sharks around them.

The air surveillance AWACS radar planes deal of 1980, organized by Bandar bin Sultan, also involved a hefty commission for Khalid whose name was mentioned in this connection in the Dooley Papers. The usual partners in the deal got their share of commission through Global Enterprise Group, a company set up for this particular purpose.


Khalid Enters the Media World:


After the 1979 Sacred Mosque incident, the Iran-Iraq war and some other scandals involving their royal highnesses, the House of Saud, and the Sudeiris in particular, realized the importance of a media network under their control. So, from 1984 on, they embarked on building a veritable media network which has come to include many Arabic dailies and weeklies as well as radio and television stationsmost of international coverage. Once the network was in place, Prince Khalid was pushed to the fore mainly to project the Sudeiri familys views to the world.

Khalids first appearance in the media world was his attempt to buy the British daily The Observer. He offered a very attractive price but, however moderate an Arab he was in the eyes of the West, he remained after all an Arab and, in the view of some shadowy political lobbies, the Arab must not be given the opportunity to own media of international coverage. Hence, his offer to buy the British daily was turned down.

Continuing in his attempts, he bought off the Lebanese newspaper El-Hayat in 1988 and started its daily publication from London under the editorship of a former Lebanese Maronite, Jihad al-Khazen. Meanwhile, he bought actions in the Bahraini daily Al-Ayyam and later founded the weekly Al-Wasat in London. About a year ago, he set up the Arab-American Television station in the United States.

Even though all the Saudi-controlled media are in the hands of the Sudeiris, conflict between them erupted over many petty issues, which led them to a lot of bickering in public. This is how Al-Sharq al-Awsatfounded by Khalids uncle Salman! published the photo of Prince Khalids mistress Brigitte Nelson, while Khalids El-Hayat published King Fahds mistress Leila Alawi.


Desert Storm Blows Khalid Away:


Khalids career declined sharply with the second Gulf war. King Fahd entrusted him with the catering service of the anti-Iraqi coalition of forces under the leadership of American General Schwartzkopff. Misleadingly named by the Saudi monarch Chief of the joint forces. He was, in fact, simply a collaborator of the Americans against his own people because of assisting the friendly forces over sensitive issues likely to cause anti-American unrest among the Arabian people. His being constantly present alongside General Schartzkopff in the Operations Room got him some media coverage both nationally and internationally. So, he soon became too big for his boots. Apart from diverting an important part of the catering budget, which aggravated Washington, he dared criticize General Schwartzkopff, who had returned to America. Later Khaled wrote in his book Desert Warrior that the success of the Gulf war was due to his own planning.

Even more compromizing was his statement shortly after the war over the necessity of rearming the Arabian army (under the command of his father Sultan) and the National Guard (under the command of Crown Prince Abdallah, Sultans rival), and the need to make compulsory conscription, all of which are sensitive issue within the House of Sauds carefully maintained balance of forces. Other revelations made in his book, and which had been concealed by the Americans, regarding the role of the joint Arab troops during the Gulf war caused some friction between Washington and Riyadh which was the last straw and caused his downfall. Ironically King Fahad sacked him in humiliating circumstances for the same reason. Khaled went too far in his own imagination of being the Commander of the Forces. King Fahad was extremely furious when Khaled took several decisions without consulting him.

Khalid has ever since been ignored by the regime and the Saudi media. He has gradually slumped into oblivion. Neither his father, nor his estimated wealth of $10 billion have been of any assistance to remember him to the world. Perhaps another $50 billion donation to help control AIDS in America might do the trick



Prince Faisal bin Fahd Bin Abdel Aziz



Prince Faisal, son of King Fahd bin Abdulaziz, was born in 1945. He did most of his studies in the Kingdom and obtained a BA in Political Sciences from abroad.

His first job was in 1971 as Head of the Youth Department with ministerial rank. The Labour Ministry was also attached to his Department. Since then, he has had many positions, all within the youth and sport areas. He was successively President of the Arab Football Union, Arabian Football Union, Arabian Olympic Committee, Arab Sports Union and Head of the National Committee on Drugs Control. At the international and regional level, Faisal bin Fahd was nominated Honorary President of the International Swimming Federation. In 1974 he became Chairman of the Arab Ministers’ Council on Youth and of member of the Supreme Council of Youth which was set up that very year. Finally, he acquired the position of President of the Basket Ball Federation. During his term in these positions, he naturally attended a great many sports events including the conferences of the International Football Federation in Munich between 1972 and 1974.

Faisal has been kept in the same position since he was appointed to it in 1971 at the time of King Faisal, when his own father was Interior Minister. In the meantime, his brothers and cousins in the Sudeiri family had been raised to higher offices. In fact, were it not for the present system of succession to the throne, which was established by his grand father King Abdulaziz, Faisal would have had the chance to become king himself, especially as he is well educated. So, why is it that he has been kept in the same position when he is not less eager than his relatives to wield power? Faisal bin Fahd was connected with the Youth Department at an early age, when the situation of sport in the kingdom was dismal with almost inexistent sport facilities. His appointment at the head of this Department coincided with the oil boom.

The plan was to make sport popular among the youth. But the ultimate objective of the Sudeiris was a long term strategic one. The point was to keep young people busy in order to protect the grip on power by the House of Saud. Many countries, like the former Soviet bloc, used sport as a means to keep their youth away from any political or intellectual activity. Various studies exist which show that the use of sport for such ends put state budgets for games second only to military expenditure in such countries.

As a by-product of this objective, another not less devious goal was sought: the creation of a feeling of national, ‘Saudi’ belonging which would supersede and even marginalize the Arabian youth’s sense of belonging to the wider Arab and Islamic Ummah. For this purpose Saudi Arabia had to fix the ways and means to train a sport-oriented youth which would enable the Kingdom to have access to International events and Olympic games to eventually instil this sense in an ever greater number of youths.

The House of Saud gave Faisal all the prerogatives to attain this goal. With an annual budget of $20 billion for the Youth Department, Faisal embarked on a programme of impressive sport facilities and training and visits to various world-famous clubs were regularly undertaken and Western coaches recruited at great costs. With the assistance of his brother Sultan bin Fahd, Faisal undertook the construction of sport villages, centres and stadia, clubs and fully staffed training facilities of all kinds at a cost considered enough to be meet the nations needs until the year 2000. One particular sports complex occupies an area of 80,000 m2 and cost xxxxxxx1,280 Saudi Riyals.

It accommodates swimming pools, Olympic-standard activity areas, restaurants for 1,000 people and a purpose-made building for the House of Saud and their guests. Faisal had similar complexes built in the other major cities like Riyadh, Jeddah and Dammam. Alongside these facilities, separate Olympic-grade swimming pools, youth hostels as well as unions and clubs for all sorts of games were set up. At the same time, Faisal undertook to have the Saudi national team and clubs join international federations. It was in this context that, in 1976, he hired the British football coach Jimmy Hill. Hill was given a special budget with prerogatives to train young people of all ages, everywhere in the kingdom. In a move to boost the country’s chance of winning matches and get promoted to higher divisions, Faisal hired several western players at prohibitive costs.

Therefore, the cost of hanging on to power is double: on the one hand, billions of pounds have been spent out of the country’s wealth; on the other hand, through sport the youth is being alienated from its Islamic values and traditions, and is being made redundant intellectually. Not that sport as such is the "opium of the people," but the very policy which underlies it is intentionally devious and harmful. Whereas the Sudeiri brothers— morally and financially corrupt—are banking on time to instil in the youth the a sense of narrow nationalism and regionalism, the late Al-Saud kings can be credited with keeping away from these concepts for religious reasons and because of the kingdom’s religious weight in the Muslim world. Apart from heading the Sudeiri family’s policy of alienating Saudi youth, Prince Faisal is no exception in the world of financial corruption. His commissions are reported to be 30% of the budget of his Youth Department. This classic way of obtaining commissions is no different from that of his father, uncles, brothers and cousins: a percentage is taken on each project, service and equipment supplies. Another percentage is taken annually on the earnings of each of the facilities. Yet a further source of illegal income comes from the budget devoted to sports events both at home and abroad.

Faisal’s embezzlement was not limited to the sports world and his Department. According to two authors, Nacer Said (History of the House of Saud, Arabic p. 773) and AbderRahman Al-Shamrani (The Scandal Kingdom, Arabic, vol. 2, p. 287), Faisal obtained a commission of $40 million from the European company Philips which was entrusted with the modernization of the country’s telephone system in the seventies. Meanwhile Faisal was involved in the confiscation of poor people’s lands. He is known to have taken 4 million m2 of land along the Jeddah sea shore, while he confiscated the Dammam Project no. 92 which included 92,000 allotments distributed to impoverished people. Property licences were suddenly withdrawn from the beneficiaries overnight without any valid explanation and the lands were given to Prince Faisal. The latter’s embezzlement from real estates is reported to be much higher than the commissions he acquired through his office at the head of the Youth Department.

King Fahd who used to prepare his sons for high offices became desperate about Faisal’s disastrous behaviour. This explains why the King, his father, has decided not to promote him. Indeed Faisal is known to be both a homosexual and a chronic drug addict. For all this, King Fahd reportedly continued to test him. In the hope of getting him to improve, he gave him several sensitive missions to Gorbatchev’s Soviet Union and to communist China under cover of sporting events. But this was to no avail as Faisal continued his drug addition and went even as far as having a drug wing under his control, which led to complaints from various foreign diplomatic and intelligence services to the Saudi authorities, according to a journalist close to the royal family. As a remedy, Faisal was sent to the West for drug addiction treatment. It was at that time that he was appointed president of the Drug Control Committee, a move meant to encourage him to give up taking drugs but, again, to no avail.

In view of his son’s hopelessness, King Fahd decided to groom his other two sons, Muhammed and Abdulaziz bin Fahd, for high positions. Muhammed was then dropped and the King concentrated his attention on Abdulaziz. The latter received $300 million from the state’s budget while his father transferred to him another all his fortune both in real estates and in money—a total estimated to be to the tune of $40 billion. Needless to say that all this aggravated Faisal who saw his chances of promotion gone, perhaps for ever.

Yet, Faisal is not poor: the wealth he stole or was given from the people’s stolen wealth is estimated to be between seven and ten billion dollars. He is still relatively young, so he still may have a lot of time to plunder and become richer.

Revelations: Zionist Rulers of Arabia
 
The Paris attack has shown the chaos unleashed in the Middle East has no borders. Perhaps western powers will now learn the important lesson:: Don't rely on pseudo-religious Salafi-inspired thugs to further geo-political agendas. Thankfully our establishment has learnt this lesson well. The Al Saud need the Wahabi/Salafi establishment for political legitimacy.We don't have that problem.

Speaking of pseudo-religious Salafi marauders, ISIS is Saudi's "gift" to the muslim world and beyond. A network that now poses the biggest threat of the 21st century to the muslim and western world. In a bid to oust Assad with a focus on shortsighted geo-political gains, western powers turned a blind eye to ISIS and other like minded groups wreaking havoc across Syria and Iraq.The US UK and France sat on the sidelines quietly supporting the chaos in Syria as the Saudis midwifed ISIS pumping money, weapons, and resources, with Turkey providing the logistics and supply lines through its border. In 2013 John McCain thanked " our Saudi and Qatari friends" for funding the fight in Syria. In a war where the moderate militant has become rarer than the mythical unicorn, the Salafi jihadists led by ISIS and Al Nusra now rule the roost. While Al Nusra was heavily supported by Qatar, ISIS was entirely a Saudi project. General Dempsey admitted as much during a Senate hearing last year. And that is no surprise.

The Al Saud have historically consistently relied on their Wahabi/Salafi foot soldiers/allies to achieve geo-political aims, reflected in their 200 year old alliance with the followers of Abdel Wahab. The Karbala massacre in 1801, the Ikhwan raping and pillaging entire communities across Hijaz in the early 1900s, the latest creation in the form of ISIS wreaking havoc across Iraq and Syria, are only a few examples of this enduring unholy alliance nurtured in the sands of Nejd. As always, the proxies have increasingly spun out of control and ISIS is simply the latest manifestation of chickens coming home to roost.

The US, UK and France are now targeting ISIS and a few other Salafi-funded militant groups in Iraq and Syria. However the ambiguous and half hearted approach by the US has been fully revealed ever since the Russians joined the fight - doing just enough to keep ISIS in check but not enough to cripple it. The US policy of "having your cake and eating it too" has not worked. After the Paris attack, the Europeans have belatedly gotten the memo as the chaos unleashed in the Middle East comes knocking on their doors. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam continues to live in fantasyland.

When will the US, UK and France stop propping up the state that spawned ISIS, Lashkar e Jhangvi, Boko Haram among others, and the Wahabi/Salafi ideology driving it? When will they stop chasing arms and energy deals with the fountainhead of the salafi jihadi movement/ estabishment and hold it accountable? To destroy ISIS, the ideology and support network fueling it must be dismantled in Saudi. Of course given the Al Saud's symbiotic and long-standing bond with their Wahabi brethren, it is not clear if they will course correct voluntarily.

Don't just fight the symptoms, treat the disease. Until that happens, the dark salafi jihadist storm will keep ravaging communities across the middle east, europe and beyond. And no one will be immune.
 
Last edited:
American policies vis-a-vis the ME (with all the upswings and downswings with the regional players), notably Iran and KSA over the decades has simply been confounding, to the point of absurdity. We (and you Americans) are destined to see even more of this in times ahead.
That sometimes leaves me wondering: are Americans (in successive Govts) simply unable to see beyond the tips of their noses?
I will make an attempt to explain the ground realities to you in brief.

There is a long history of ethnic rift between Shia and Sunni factions in the Middle East; both want to dominate the Middle East. On ideological grounds, Saudi Arabia governs the Sunni sphere of influence while Iran governs the Shia sphere of influence.

Have a look at the map:

middle-east.gif


Saudi Arabia wants to enforce Sunni dominance in all of its neighboring states. However, Iran is contesting Sunni dominance in Yemen, Iraq and Syria [at present] by influencing and funding Shia factions in these countries; Iran attempted to do the same in Bahrain as well but this particular plan flopped due to direct military intervention from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia commenced a military operation in Yemen [after success in Bahrain] to prevent gains of a powerful Shia faction (Houthis) on the ground in this nation but a breakthrough have not been achieved in this region so far.

Saudi Arabia also wants to prevent Iraq and Syria from falling under the umbrella of Shia sphere of influence of Iran. This is why it is [unofficially] supporting ISIS movement in these states along side Kuwait. ISIS movement checkmates the influence of Shia clerics in Iraq and Syria.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia wants US to topple current Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Pakistan to destroy Houthis in Yemen. However, US and Pakistan want to stay away from the Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East but both have assured Saudi Arabia that they will protect it from harm from external and internal threats. US, in particular, is interested in maximizing its profits from the sales of arms to different states / factions in the Middle East.

Now, it remains to be seen that who will become the next President of US and what kind of policy he will devise for the Middle East. Republicans and Saudi Arabian leadership are on the same page but Democrats think differently.
 
Last edited:
The first step would be to tell the Saudis to stop meddling in our affairs. We should not countenance even a single dirham from that country that may force us to take sides in the coming conflict.

Source: The Saudi war in Iraq and lessons for Pakistan
Now that's a tough one! Free Dirhams will always be welcome and something that the Establishment cannot do without!
 
i agree with you. They might have learn something from Saudi Arabia
 
After Paris and Beirut, It’s Time to Rein in Saudi Arabia
America's leading ally has been propagating a violent, sectarian religious ideology long before ISIS came on the scene.

By Inge Fryklund, November 20, 2015.

After the carnage in Paris, Western governments turned immediately to debating the usual tactics for “bringing the terrorists to justice.” Should we employ drone strikes, they wonder? Boots on the ground? Police?

The much more important matter, however, is identifying and stopping the source of the nihilism, misogyny, and sectarian animus that’s found fertile breeding grounds in the civil wars of the Middle East. Unless the source is addressed, there will be an endless supply of terrorists wreaking havoc. And we in the West will continue wringing our hands and responding impulsively rather than strategically.

While virtually all Islamic scholars dispute the theological soundness of the ISIS ideology, the group’s roots lie in fundamentalist Salafi Islam, specifically the Wahhabi strain officially espoused by Saudi Arabia — our “ally” — which views Shiites as apostates and seeks to turn Islamic societies back to an intolerant (and imagined) medieval past where women are stoned for adultery and reporters are lashed. Since the 1970s, the Saudi government and its allied religious establishment have exported their extremist version of Islam around the world — all financed by their oil money.

During the 1970s and ‘80s, Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) in support of the anti-Soviet insurgents in Afghanistan that became the Taliban. The U.S. matched the Saudi contribution to ISI, but abdicated its responsibility to see where the money was going. Anxious to avoid overt provocation of the Soviets, Washington allowed Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to choose the recipients of American taxpayer dollars, and these were the most fundamentalist insurgent factions — like the Haqqani network, which plagues Afghanistan even today and has targeted American soldiers serving there.

Saudi money financed the Pakistani madrassas that provided the only available “schooling” for a generation of young Afghan male refugees. In camps devoid of women, the extreme separation of the sexes resulted in young males detached from any experience of women or family life.

Since the 1990s, Saudi money has similarly financed mosques and Wahhabi-inspired teaching throughout the Balkans as well, contributing to the instability of that region.

It appears that the connection between Saudi Arabia and the Paris bombings is even more direct. Many of the plotters came from the Molenbeek neighborhood in Brussels. In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia funded Wahhabi religious schools there, displacing or taking over the more moderate mosques founded by the Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the district and helping to thwart their children’s potential for cultural integration.

ISIS’ extreme misogynistic worldview was starkly on display in its statement after the Paris massacre. It referred to a “profligate prostitution party” at the Bataclan Conference Center. This should be a red flag. The equation of women out to a concert and prostitution reflects the same mindset animating the Saudi insistence that women cannot drive, cannot leave the house unless escorted by a male relative, and must be covered head to toe. (In fact, I would argue there’s an insufficiently explored thread of distorted sexuality in hardline Wahhabi belief and practice.)

Our “ally’s” religiously mandated intolerance was displayed to the world in the hatred that we witnessed on Nov. 13th, with hundreds dead and many more maimed in Lebanon and Paris. Why do we put up with this aggressive medieval proselytizing from Saudi Arabia? With allies like this, who needs enemies?

Well, the simple answer is oil: We’ve chosen to buy our oil from Saudi Arabia and boycott the Shiite Iranian source.

But cheap oil may have been purchased too dearly when the mayhem in the Middle East and now Europe is the result. Accepting higher oil prices in the interests of containing Salafi nihilism could be a worthwhile bargain.

We’ve also boxed ourselves in diplomatically by a generation of demonizing and isolating Iran, the major Shiite power, leaving no counterweight to the Saudi Salafi ideology. Yes, we cite the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Tehran, but forget that Iranian anti-American sentiment was a predictable result of the CIA overthrowing the elected and more or less democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953. (The U.S. acted at a British request; they wanted to control Iranian oil and Mossadegh nationalized it.) We condemned Iran to a generation of brutal dictatorship under the Shah’s notorious secret police. Should we have been surprised when the revolution that came in 1979 brought payback to the Americans?

While Iran does indeed support violence in other countries, its efforts seem rationally related to political objectives (supporting Hezbollah against the Israeli occupation, and Assad as a fellow Shiite power) and might be resolved as such. They have thus far not included assaults on uninvolved civilians and barbarism for its own sake.

So what to do at this point? We have leverage over Saudi Arabia if we choose to use it. We should stop supplying weapon — and insist that Saudi Arabia cease financing Salafi jihadists throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq and the Balkans. It’s pointless to apply tactical solutions to the problems of the Middle East while Saudi Arabia is free to (almost literally) pour oil on the fires.

Ms. Inge Fryklund, JD, PhD, has worked in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with USAID, UNDP, and with the U.S. Army and Marines.
 
The Nation

Britain, and more importantly Prime Minister David Cameron, has been in the spotlight lately for all the wrong reasons. It has been facing a backlash from a coalition of human rights groups on Wednesday, which criticised Britain for weapons transfers to Saudi Arabia, claiming that arms sales to Riyadh would violate a global treaty regulating trade in munitions. David Cameron on the other hand has been blamed for squandering nearly £400 million in taxpayers’ aid to Yemen through its support for the Saudi-led military offensive in the country’s civil war. The destructive role that the UK is playing in the war is burdening its economy and shifting the political atmosphere in the country.

The civil war in Yemen has led to the collapse of the government, left more than two million people homeless and pushed the country to the brink of famine. The chaos is also helping jihadists from al-Qaeda and the Islamic State cement their foothold – the very outcome Britain lavished aid on Yemen to avoid. An air strike by the Saudi-led coalition hit a relief warehouse run by Oxfam, while the Save the Children has had two of its bases destroyed. Both charities’ aid efforts in Yemen are funded in part by DFID. Britain’s humanitarian and foreign policy are pursuing different ends entirely and this Britain must realise. The support for Saudi coalition must stop if it hopes to purge itself from the war atrocities being committed in Yemen.

Nearly 6,000 people, almost half of them civilians, have died since Saudi-led air strikes began in March. This cannot be contributed to the UK alone as the US The approved an arms sale which is worth $1.29 billion and includes 13,000 precision guided weapons, in November as part of the Obama administration’s pledge to boost military support for Saudi. There is a definite shift in the way that the West views its relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Western policymakers know that the battle with jihadism is as much about ideology as guns. When they look for a source of the ISIS worldview, they increasingly trace it back to the Salafi/Wahhabi philosophy promoted by the Saudi religious establishment. Yet they pour guns and money into the Kingdom. Saudi money speaks louder than any foreign policy, be it national or international. It is the reason that Pakistan has been seemingly coerced to be a part of a coalition it is clueless about.
 
DAWN
A flawed alliance



ARE we or are we not a part of the newly formed Saudi-led ‘Islamic military alliance’? The contradictory statements emanating from the foreign ministry have deepened the puzzle. First, there was an appearance of surprise when the Saudi deputy crown prince named Pakistan among the 34 countries in the alliance. ‘We were not consulted’ was the reaction from the foreign secretary. A day later, the Foreign Office endorsed the Saudi move. What caused this sudden turnaround is anyone’s guess.

It is yet another foreign policy disaster in the making. The confusion exposes the complete disarray in our decision-making process on a critical foreign policy issue that has direct bearing on our national security. Sartaj Aziz, the adviser on foreign affairs, told the Senate that he was still unaware of the full details of the new alliance.

How come we have committed ourselves to a coalition in whose formation we had no role? We are not even clear about its tasks. Is it not bizarre that the adviser had no clue about the assurance of support we might already have given to the Saudi rulers?

The Saudi role in fighting ISIS that has established its brutal rule in parts of Iraq and Syria has remained dubious.

The Saudi move seems to have taken many other Muslim countries, supposedly part of the alliance, by surprise. Except for Turkey and some Gulf countries, that are already part of the Saudi-led military coalition against Yemen, no other Muslim country has endorsed the ‘Sunni’ alliance.

Although the declared objective of the proposed military alliance is to fight global terrorism, it is largely seen as a means of promoting the Saudi agenda of dividing Muslim nations along sectarian lines and solidifying an anti-Iran coalition. The Saudi role in fanning the Middle East civil war has hugely contributed to the rise of the militant Islamic State group that the alliance is supposed to counter.

Unsurprisingly, the announcement of the formation of the alliance came from none other than the young Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman who is believed to be responsible for his country’s disastrous military entanglement in the Yemeni civil war. The detail of what task the new alliance would undertake has deliberately been left vague. Saudi officials maintain that the modalities of how to move forward remain to be worked out. Predictably, Iran has been excluded from the list of the members.

One of the objectives of the new alliance is to fight ISIS. But the Saudi role in fighting the militant group that has established its brutal rule in parts of Iraq and Syria has remained dubious. The kingdom has been actively backing some of the extremist Islamist groups the elements of which later became a part of ISIS.

The power struggle in Syria that has left millions of people dead or homeless has largely turned into a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia with other countries on one side or the other too. While Iran backed the government of Bashar al-Assad, the Saudis provided financial support to rebel groups that also included the Al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat-al Nusra.

Furthermore, the Saudis are actively supporting some of the Salafi rebel groups fighting the Iranian-backed Baghdad government. The kingdom has actually played no role in fighting ISIS so far. Instead, its focus has been diverted to Yemen, where it is combating what it says are Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

Meanwhile, the role of Turkey, one of the main sponsors of the alliance, also raises questions about Ankara’s commitment to fighting ISIS. It is not only Russia that has accused Turkey of buying oil from ISIS that helps the terrorist group finance its war. Some other reports also confirm the allegation of Turkey looking the other way as foreign ISIS fighters cross into Syria.

Turkey has also been actively involved in the Syrian civil war supporting some of the Saudi-backed Salafi jihadist groups. Its Kurdish separatist movement that has roots across the border in Iraq and Syria dictates Turkey’s position on the Syrian war. For Ankara, perhaps, ISIS presents a counterweight to the Kurds in both Iraq and Syria.

Interestingly, Saudi officials maintain that one objective of the alliance is to fight the scourge of terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan. But the names of three of them — Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan — are absent from the list of alliance member countries. Iraq is obviously left out because of its closeness to Iran. So, how is the military alliance going to fight terrorism in those countries without their participation?

In this situation, the proposed military alliance would only sharpen the polarisation in the Middle East along sectarian lines, further worsening the civil war and making it more difficult to counter IS. For sure, there is an urgent need for uniting Muslim countries to fight terrorism, but a Saudi-sponsored military alliance with its headquarters in Riyadh can hardly bring together a Muslim world that is divided along sectarian lines. How can any counterterrorism alliance work with some member countries directly or indirectly supporting some of the militant groups?

In fact, it is hard to see a country that itself has long been seen as the sponsor of extremism and radical Salafi Islam — that is a major source of militancy in various countries, particularly in Pakistan — as a leader of the alliance.

The funding for radical madressahs involved in the sectarian conflict is believed to be coming from Saudi charities.

Surely, terrorism in all its shapes cannot be eradicated without countering extremism. It does not require a military alliance; rather it is the end of the sectarian-based proxy war in the Middle East that should be on the decision table.

Joining the Saudi-led military alliance spells more trouble for Pakistan waging its own war against militancy. In some ways, it has already been drawn into the proxy war with both Saudi Arabia and Iran reportedly recruiting Pakistani fighters for their respective proxies involved in Syria and Iraq.
 
ISIS and Saudi Arabia: A Dangerous Double Game

Saudi Arabia, with one of the region’s largest military budgets and strongest armies, is a key part of the U.S.-led coalition attacking Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq. Riyadh designated ISIS a terrorist organization as far back as March 2014, and in December 2015 announced its own coalition of Islamic states to fight militancy.

Still, the kingdom has come under intense scrutiny for its approach to the threat. Many of its Western allies have accused it of not doing enough to thwart the Islamic State’s funding sources or combat its ideology.
Analysts say Riyadh has been pursuing a risky dual strategy. It has supported extremist groups abroad for ideological and strategic reasons – not least to combat Shi’ite influence – while cracking down on extremists at home as a threat to the regime’s stability.

In a 2009 memo revealed by WikiLeaks, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the kingdom was a main source of funding for militant groups including Al-Qaida. Riyadh was not acting to stop this money flow, she added.This policy continued into the Syrian civil war. Private sources in the Gulf provided hefty funding for extremist anti-regime groups in the uprising's early years, often channeling cash donations through intermediaries in Turkey. Gulf states including Saudi Arabia allowed the transfer of funds to these militant Sunni groups, viewing the militias as an effective way to counter Iranian influence in the region.

Some groups funded this way later defected to the Islamic State, bringing their weapons with them. The Nusra Front is estimated to have lost around 3,000 fighters to its bitter rival ISIS.The report did note that “Riyadh has taken pleasure in recent ISIS-led Sunni advances against Iraq’s Shiite government, and in jihadist gains in Syria at Bashar al-Assad’s expense.” Some Western partners fear that the civil war in neighboring Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is supporting the fight against the Iranian-allied Houthi rebels, is Riyadh’s current priority.

Saudi Arabia is clearly sensitive about these issues. In December 2015 it announced it was forming a coalition of 34 Islamic countries to fight terrorism. This alliance would be based in the Saudi capital and include Arab countries such as Egypt and Qatar, and non-Arab ones such as Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia.
Still, it remains unclear just what this grouping might achieve, not least because some ostensible members such as Indonesia expressed surprise at being included at all.
Although Riyadh did not mention the Islamic State directly, insisting that the alliance would combat terror in all its forms, it clearly hopes to reassure its Western allies that it’s part of the solution, not the problem.

But critics say it’s not only finance that links Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State. The Saudi version of Islam, Wahhabism, is based on the teachings of the 18th-century scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Militant and rigid, it harks back to a supposedly "pure version" of the faith as practiced by the prophet’s original followers, the Salaf.

The Saudis have spent decades promoting this particularly intolerant interpretation of Islam and sharia law around the world. They have funded mosques and free madrassas – religious schools – supplying them with imams and textbooks. A June 2013 report by the European Parliament deemed Wahhabism/Salafism the main source of global terrorism. According to the findings, Saudi Arabia had spent more than $10 million promoting the creed through charities around the Muslim world.

ISIS leaders have referred to Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings, which help underpin the movement’s ideology. Other similarities are clear, not least hostility to Shi’ite Islam and other faith groups, as well as a rigid reading of sharia law.

Much attention has been paid to the apparent crossover between Saudi Arabia and Islamic State salafi practices, not least the Saudis’ executions by beheading.


It has been suggested that the husband and wife who killed 14 people in San Bernadino, California, in December 2015 were influenced by their stay in Saudi Arabia. Syed Farook, a 28-year-old county health inspector, traveled there the previous year, while his Pakistan-born wife, 29-year-old Tashfeen Malik, spent much of her life in the kingdom.

Qatar has joined coalition strikes against the Islamic State but also has a long record of hosting militant groups. It has let Hamas and the Taliban set up offices there and provided support to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood after it was unseated in 2013.

Like the Saudis, the Qataris were keen to sponsor the Syrian uprising against Bashar Assad through Islamist militias such as the Nusra Front. This had a knock-on effect on the Islamic State.
For example, there is no oversight of Qatar’s middlemen in Turkey buying weapons for antigovernment forces in Syria, and fighters from non-ISIS jihadi groups sometimes join the Islamic State and bring their weapons with them.
In August 2014, the German minister of economic cooperation and development, Gerd Müller, seemed to make an explicit link with Qatar as well.

Chickens coming home to roost

In November 2014, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi reportedly called for strikes against the Saudi royal family in a speech broadcast on the group’s media. He described the regime as “the serpent’s head and the stronghold of the disease,” calling for Islamic State supporters in Saudi Arabia to rise up against the kingdom.
Saudi security services report mass arrests in anti-terrorism operations aimed at rooting out ISIS cells in the kingdom. Islamic State militants have claimed responsibility for at least four attacks on Saudi mosques in the past year, and some 2,500 Saudi nationals are believed to have traveled to fight with ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

The double game has indeed proved dangerous.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom