What's new

Blast at Jamia Naeemia; Dr Sarfraz martyred

All Green


This is part of the strategy -- see, the Saudi ambassador has done two things we predicted the insurgents would do - first the Saudi ambassador called for a "Jirga" and second he called for the inclusion of "scholars" -- now the purpose of the Jirga is give "political" legitimacy to the insurgency and second, the "scholars" will not be those see this insurgency as primarily anti-Pakistan and anti-islamic, after all, did the scholars not see what will happen to them if they do not agree with the insurgents?

Our forum member, S2, had informed us that funds from Saudi Arabia and the gulf countries are pouring into the talib coffers, I think it's pretty clear after the comments of the Saudi ambassador, that Saudi Arabia is playing a curious offical role, it is a kind of double game with Pakistan in support of a particular political outcome in Pakistan.

Muse - check out the 'Detailed reporting on foreigners arrested.....(very informative)' thread. Lots of info on Saudi support for the taliban as well as talat hussain's commentary on saudi wahhabi terrorists recently arrested. I've also posted a couple of articles providing background info on the wahhabi doctrine and its current setup in saudi.
 
Last edited:
Military operation is only one way to deal with militants while there are other options that can be tried to tackle terrorism.This was stated by Saudi Ambassador Ali S Awadh Asseri while talking to a private TV channel at the Saudi Embassy Sunday.He said enlightened religious scholars and traditional ljirgas could be involved to seek a solution to the militancy[/B]. [/COLOR]Development and reforms are other options that could prove effective to stem the tide of terrorism, he added. Saudi Arabia, he said, is always ready to help Pakistan in its efforts to restore peace in the country.[/QUOTE][/COLOR][/I]

hmm - not surprising. As has been widely reported, most of taliban funding is coming from Saudi. First, the wahhabis fund the taliban to fight the pakistani state and then they talk about development and reform - talk about playing a double game! The ambassador's comments remind me of Sufi Muhammad's nonsense.

If I remember correctly, the same Saudi ambassador(Asseri) was involved in several meetings with the Lal Masjid terrorist cleric (Ghazi) during the standoff in 2007. At the time, the Lal Masjid thug giving an interview explained that all he wanted was to see ' an implementation of saudi law in pakistan' - clearly the Lal Masjid terrorists and other taliban criminals are ideologically tied to the saudi wahhabi establishment and continue to enjoy patronage from supporters in saudi.
 
Last edited:
The Saudis do not fund the Taliban, and any previous support to them was directed by the Pakistani establishment itself.

The Saudis and Taliban have ideological and theological differences, so using the term 'wahhabbies' to cloud the issue just doesn't work. The Taliban subscribe to the Deobandi school of thought, far removed from that of the Saudis.

All your posts do is betray a certain bigotry towards members of what you call the 'wahabbi' school of thought.
 
The Saudis do not fund the Taliban, and any previous support to them was directed by the Pakistani establishment itself.

The Saudis and Taliban have ideological and theological differences, so using the term 'wahhabbies' to cloud the issue just doesn't work. The Taliban subscribe to the Deobandi school of thought, far removed from that of the Saudis.

All your posts do is betray a certain bigotry towards members of what you call the 'wahabi' school of thought.

Most of the taliban funding does come from Saudi and the Gulf - this is not my opinion but the assessment of pakistani security officials as well as the US State department. If you were to do some research on the topic, you would know that as well. It is a fact that Mulla Fazlullah and Baitullah Mehsud and their followers are wahhabi/salafi - the taliban brutalizing women, desecrating graves, blowing up shrines are a mirror image of wahhabi/salafi practices. For your information, most of the Taliban madrassas in pakistan are saudi-funded as well.

I'd urge you to research the topic before making categorical statements as in ' Saudis do not fund Taliban.....' You should also check out Talat's Hussains's expose of the saudi terrorists caught recently.

Financial Times March 25, 2009

The US has told its Nato partners that funds from individuals in Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia now rival if not exceed drug money as a source of financing for Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US launched a high-profile push to reduce Gulf funding for the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militant groups operating out of Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001. As a result, in recent years insurgent links to Afghanistan’s burgeoning heroin trade have become the principal focus.

But Richard Holbrooke, US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, expressed fresh concerns to Nato ambassadors during a briefing this week on the US’s strategic review of Afghan-Pakistan policy, which is expected to be announced on Friday.

“He said that the prime source of funding for the Taliban is not from narcotics but from private individuals and groups in the Gulf region particularly Saudi,” said a western diplomat, without giving further details.

Another official attending the meeting said Mr Holbrooke had suggested that much of the funding from poppy production appeared to go to individuals linked in some way to the Afghan government.

“There is real concern about funding for extremists in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region coming from the Gulf, which we understand rivals or exceeds the money they are getting from drugs,” said another diplomat, quoting estimates of $150m-$300m for insurgents’ drugs cash.

Diplomats made clear that the money did not appear to come from Gulf governments but from groups and private individuals.

The US has for some time been pushing Saudi Arabia to ensure that funds raised for charities do not ultimately finance Islamist militants.

The drive has been headed by Stuart Levey, Treasury undersecretary in the administration of George W. Bush, who was this week formally retained in his post by Barack Obama, Mr Bush’s successor as president. Mr Levey has pushed for years for Saudi Arabia to oversee effectively the international activities of Saudi-based organisations through a charities commission.

The Saudi embassy in Washington did not immediately reply to a request for comment late on Wednesday.
 
Most of the taliban funding does come from Saudi and the Gulf - this is not my opinion but the assessment of pakistani security officials as well as the US State department. If you were to do some research on the topic, you would know that as well. It is a fact that Mulla Fazlullah and Baitullah Mehsud and their followers are wahhabi/salafi - the taliban brutalizing women, desecrating graves, blowing up shrines are a mirror image of wahhabi/salafi practices. For your information, most of the Taliban madrassas in pakistan are saudi-funded as well.

I'd urge you to research the topic before making categorical statements as in ' Saudis do not fund Taliban.....' You should also check out Talat's Hussains's expose of the saudi terrorists caught recently.

Financial Times March 25, 2009

The US has told its Nato partners that funds from individuals in Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia now rival if not exceed drug money as a source of financing for Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US launched a high-profile push to reduce Gulf funding for the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militant groups operating out of Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001. As a result, in recent years insurgent links to Afghanistan’s burgeoning heroin trade have become the principal focus.

But Richard Holbrooke, US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, expressed fresh concerns to Nato ambassadors during a briefing this week on the US’s strategic review of Afghan-Pakistan policy, which is expected to be announced on Friday.

“He said that the prime source of funding for the Taliban is not from narcotics but from private individuals and groups in the Gulf region particularly Saudi,” said a western diplomat, without giving further details.

Another official attending the meeting said Mr Holbrooke had suggested that much of the funding from poppy production appeared to go to individuals linked in some way to the Afghan government.

“There is real concern about funding for extremists in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region coming from the Gulf, which we understand rivals or exceeds the money they are getting from drugs,” said another diplomat, quoting estimates of $150m-$300m for insurgents’ drugs cash.

Diplomats made clear that the money did not appear to come from Gulf governments but from groups and private individuals.

The US has for some time been pushing Saudi Arabia to ensure that funds raised for charities do not ultimately finance Islamist militants.

The drive has been headed by Stuart Levey, Treasury undersecretary in the administration of George W. Bush, who was this week formally retained in his post by Barack Obama, Mr Bush’s successor as president. Mr Levey has pushed for years for Saudi Arabia to oversee effectively the international activities of Saudi-based organisations through a charities commission.

The Saudi embassy in Washington did not immediately reply to a request for comment late on Wednesday.

Saudi Government is against any kind of terrorism, OBL belong to wahabi sect but he is enemy of Saudi Government.

AQ and Talaban are getting money from norcotics
 
>>Most of the taliban funding does come from Saudi and the Gulf - this is not my opinion but the assessment of pakistani security officials as well as the US State department. If you were to do some research on the topic, you would know that as well. It is a fact that Mulla Fazlullah and Baitullah Mehsud and their followers are wahhabi/salafi - the taliban brutalizing women, desecrating graves, blowing up shrines are a mirror image of wahhabi/salafi practices. For your information, most of the Taliban madrassas in pakistan are saudi-funded as well.

Not even a single statement of ISPR regarding saudi involvement, it would be better for you to shut up because you don't know what u r talking about you are nothing but an insignificant american lapdog
 
Saudi Government is against any kind of terrorism, OBL belong to wahabi sect but he is enemy of Saudi Government.

AQ and Talaban are getting money from norcotics

You are right to a degree - King Abdullah and his government are against terrorism. However, you must also know that the Wahhabis have been in a ruling alliance with the Saudi royals for a hundred years. In other words, the wahhabis have a significant role in the decision-making setup. There are two main centers of power in the Saudi government - one led by Abdullah and the other led by the pro-taliban wahhabi establishment. The latter has lots of money, some support among the royals and is known for fundings extremists around the world.

Due to the nature of the ruling alliance, the Saud family gave the wahhabi clerics license to propagate their ideology around the world. It is only after the 2003 attacks in Saudi that the saudi government started to crack down on its home-grown terrorists spawned by the wahhabi clerics. In a way, the Sauds helped create the wahhabi monster that eventually turned on them - as you sow so shall you reap.

I agree that the Saudi government faction led by Abdullah is against terrorism but clearly, their junior ruling partners(the wahhabi clerics with possibly support from some royal elements) are not.

As far as funding goes, Richard Holbrooke clearly stated last week that taliban funding from Saudi and Gulf far exceeds the money generated through narcotics -it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
You are right to a degree - King Abdullah and his government are against terrorism. However, you must also know that the Wahhabis have been in a ruling alliance with the Saudi royals for a hundred years. In other words, the wahhabis have a significant role in the decision-making setup. There are two main centers of power in the Saudi government - one led by Abdullah and the other led by the pro-taliban wahhabi establishment. The latter has lots of money, some support among the royals and is known for fundings extremists around the world.

Due to the nature of the ruling alliance, the Saud family gave the wahhabi clerics license to propagate their ideology around the world. It is only after the 2003 attacks in Saudi that the saudi government started to crack down on its home-grown terrorists spawned by the wahhabi clerics. In a way, the Sauds helped create the wahhabi monster that eventually turned on them - as you sow so shall you reap.

I agree that the Saudi government faction led by Abdullah is against terrorism but clearly, their junior ruling partners(the wahhabi clerics with possibly support from some royal elements) are not.

As far as funding goes, Richard Holbrooke clearly stated last week that taliban funding from Saudi and Gulf far exceeds the money generated through narcotics -it is what it is.

All mere speculations to cover the real truth. Do you know what WAHABISM is? TALIBAN are not controlling any air or sea ports, then from where the narcotics are going? Recently talked to a senior of ANTI-NARCOTICS, and he also laughed on this. And who are you qouting as source , HOLBROOKE, USA etc...Do they have any credibility left? Anyone against USA is a TERRORIST....thats the simplest defination. Just as anyone who opposed ROMANS used to be called BARBARIANS.
 
All mere speculations to cover the real truth. Do you know what WAHABISM is? TALIBAN are not controlling any air or sea ports, then from where the narcotics are going? Recently talked to a senior of ANTI-NARCOTICS, and he also laughed on this. And who are you qouting as source , HOLBROOKE, USA etc...Do they have any credibility left? Anyone against USA is a TERRORIST....thats the simplest defination. Just as anyone who opposed ROMANS used to be called BARBARIANS.

Not sure if your narcotics comment adds value to the discussion - Are you saying the wahhabis are opposing the US? Is that why they are funding the taliban?
 
All mere speculations to cover the real truth. Do you know what WAHABISM is? TALIBAN are not controlling any air or sea ports, then from where the narcotics are going? Recently talked to a senior of ANTI-NARCOTICS, and he also laughed on this. And who are you qouting as source , HOLBROOKE, USA etc...Do they have any credibility left? Anyone against USA is a TERRORIST....thats the simplest defination. Just as anyone who opposed ROMANS used to be called BARBARIANS.

Please read below article

Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?


by Michel Chossudovsky

.
Global Research, September 21, 2006



Email this article to a friend
Print this article





The United Nations has announced that opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has soared and is expected to increase by 59% in 2006. The production of opium is estimated to have increased by 49% in relation to 2005.

The Western media in chorus blame the Taliban and the warlords. The Bush administration is said to be committed to curbing the Afghan drug trade: "The US is the main backer of a huge drive to rid Afghanistan of opium... "

Yet in a bitter irony, US military presence has served to restore rather than eradicate the drug trade.

What the reports fail to acknowledge is that the Taliban government was instrumental in implementing a successful drug eradication program, with the support and collaboration of the UN.

Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban's drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.

The Vienna based UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that the 2006 harvest will be of the order of 6,100 tonnes, 33 times its production levels in 2001 under the Taliban government (3200 % increase in 5 years).

Cultivation in 2006 reached a record 165,000 hectares compared with 104,000 in 2005 and 7,606 in 2001 under the Taliban (See table below).

Multibillion dollar trade

According to the UN, Afghanistan supplies in 2006 some 92 percent of the world's supply of opium, which is used to make heroin.

The UN estimates that for 2006, the contribution of the drug trade to the Afghan economy is of the order of 2.7 billion. What it fails to mention is the fact that more than 95 percent of the revenues generated by this lucrative contraband accrues to business syndicates, organized crime and banking and financial institutions. A very small percentage accrues to farmers and traders in the producing country.

(See also UNODC, The Opium Economy in Afghanistan,
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf , Vienna, 2003, p. 7-8)

"Afghan heroin sells on the international narcotics market for 100 times the price farmers get for their opium right out of the field".(US State Department quoted by the Voice of America (VOA), 27 February 2004).

Based on wholesale and retail prices in Western markets, the earnings generated by the Afghan drug trade are colossal. In July 2006, street prices in Britain for heroin were of the order of Pound Sterling 54, or $102 a gram.

Narcotics On the Streets of Western Europe

One kilo of opium produces approximately 100 grams of (pure) heroin. 6100 tons of opium allows the production of 1220 tons of heroin with a 50 percent purity ratio.

The average purity of retailed heroin can vary. It is on average 36%. In Britain, the purity is rarely in excess of 50 percent, while in the US it can be of the order of 50-60 percent.

Based on the structure of British retail prices for heroin, the total proceeds of the Afghan heroin trade would be of the order of 124.4 billion dollars, assuming a 50 percent purity ratio. Assuming an average purity ratio of 36 percent and the average British price, the cash value of Afghan heroin sales would be of the order of 194.4 billion dollars.

While these figures do not constitute precise estimates, they nonetheless convey the sheer magnitude of this multibillion dollar narcotics trade out of Afghanistan. Based on the first figure which provides a conservative estimate, the cash value of these sales, once they reach Western retail markets are in excess of 120 billion dollars a year.

(See also our detailed estimates for 2003 in The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade, by Michel Chossudovsky, The UNODC estimates the average retail price of heroin for 2004 to be of the order of $157 per gram, based on the average purity ratio).

Narcotics: Second to Oil and the Arms Trade

The foregoing estimates are consistent with the UN's assessment concerning the size and magnitude of the global drug trade.

The Afghan trade in opiates (92 percent of total World production of opiates) constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion.

(Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000).

Based on 2003 figures, drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004).

Afghanistan and Colombia are the largest drug producing economies in the world, which feed a flourishing criminal economy. These countries are heavily militarized. The drug trade is protected. Amply documented the CIA has played a central role in the development of both the Latin American and Asian drug triangles.

The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics.

Legal Business and Illicit Trade are Intertwined

There are powerful business and financial interests behind narcotics. From this standpoint, geopolitical and military control over the drug routes is as strategic as oil and oil pipelines.

Moreover, the above figures including those on money laundering, confirm that the bulk of the revenues associated with the global trade in narcotics are not appropriated by terrorist groups and warlords, as suggested by the UNODC report. In the case of Afghanistan, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that a mere 2.7 billion accrues as revenue within Afghanistan. According to the US State department "Afghanistan drug profits support the Taliban and their terrorism efforts against the United States, its allies and the Afghan government." (statement, the House Appropriations foreign operations, export financing and related programs subcommittee. September 12, 2006)

However, what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organized crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking. This relationship has been documented by several studies including the writings of Alfred McCoy. (Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

In other words, intelligence agencies, powerful business, drug traders and organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. A large share of this multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars.

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions including the Military.

Related Article: The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade, by Michel Chossudovsky, July 2005





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1

Opium Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan



Year Cultivation in hectares Production (tons)

1994 71,470 3,400

1995 53,759 2,300

1996 56,824 2,200

1997 58,416 2,800

1998 63,674 2,700

1999 90,983 4,600

2000 82,172 3,300

2001 7,606 185

2002 74,000 3400

2003 80,000 3600

2004 131,000 4200

2005 104,000 3800

2006 165,000** 6100**

Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?
 
I think DS (welcome back! :D) made a valid point earlier - don't generalize and denigrate all of Wahabbism and all Wahabbis. There are likely extremists amongst them, as in all other sects and faiths, who believe in supporting violence to impose their ideology, but we should not tar them all with the same brush.

Extremist Wahabbis or extremists is a more appropriate term IMO.
 
Also, lets not turn this into another thread on Taliban funding - no doubt there are funds flowing in from private individuals from the Gulf. What proportion of overall Taliban funding this private funding forms is not yet known (US statements notwithstanding). We do have some pretty consistent estimates on the narcotics funding the Taliban (estimates range from 150 - 300 million USD).

Donations collected in Pakistan in the guise of Islamic charities, other criminal activities (extortion, bank robberies, kidnapping for ransom) have all been reported not just in FATA and Swat, but also cities like Karachi. In addition, in FATA, Taliban have also reportedly taken over legal businesses such as mining etc. In Swat, the Taliban ran the gemstone mines as a source of revenue.

So its safe to say that the Taliban groups have really diversified their sources of funding, though without consistent estimates from a variety of sources on the other streams of revenue, I am reluctant to agree with the US argument that donations 'exceed or rival' narcotics driven funding.
 
DS, Agno


In any Analysis, an investigator tries to let the evidence tell the story, the investigator keeps his opinon in check. In the entire thread we have asserted that all insurgencies have a commonality of strategy, and the islamist insurgency is no different -- we predicted what may be the next move, we did not put word in the Saudi Ambassadors mouth, we quoted from a pakistani newspaper (nation).

I understand that you have a particular confessional affiliation, please do not let it bias your position as a Mod. You chose to disregard an entire chain of analysis and fixated only on your bias and then accused forum members of having a bias agaiunst your confessional group. I encourage you to keep your ego away from such a discussion - no one wants to hurt your sentiments, and we all want to follow where the evidence leads, not where ideology leads, isn't that so.

This is not a contest between Wahabi and deobandi or any other, it is a contest between national interests - I sincerely hope you will not have confused where yours are, they are with us.


:pakistan:
 
Taliban Swatter.

Repeating assertions ad nauseam do not make them correct, as all you have done is repeat your 'views' which are shaped by a certain paradigm that you seem to hold to.

Let me help you break this paradigm.

Violent, radical, takfiri ideology is not a new phenomenon, not the invention of a Talib nor any 'Wahabi' cleric.

We have seen them in the guise of the Ismaili Nizari Hashisheen in the middle ages, the Batinis and mehdist cults like saqna in the times of Banu Abbas, right back to the time of Hazrat Ali, and the deserters from his army, the Khawarij whom he fought at Al Nahrawan, and was inventually assasinated by.

Nor does this phenomenon occur in one sub sect of Islam, in fact, throughout history, sunnis, shias, sufis and others have at one time or another had members succumb to this.

Of course every time it comes in a new garb, a new theology, a new polemic, a new inventor. Rather like the bulimic who believes that he/she is the inventor of an amazing cure for their perceived obesity which involves their fore-finger. In this case the perceived disease is the 'state of the ummah' and the cure another form of mass-massochism, violent takfiri struggle against the 'ummah' itself.

The motherland of modern day takfiri ideology is Egypt, where one person has been the most instrumental in its formation as we know today. Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian scholar who was vilely tortured, and ended up lashing out against the whole body-politik of Islam. His condemnation of the muslim world and its leaders, and his likening them to 'kufr' was a direct result of the personal tragedies that he had faced in those torture cells in Egypt. It was an ideology born out of hatred and vengeance, and oppression. Not every hero of the oppressed can become a Moses.

Sayyid Qutb revolutionalised Islamist thinking, and introduced violent revolutionary struggle borrowed straight from the revolutionary texts of the West. It was a far cry from the foundation laid by the first organised Islamists, Maulana Maududi of India/Pakistan and Hasan Al Banna of Egypt, both of whom are probably the two most influential (whether rightly or wrongly is another issue) muslim thinkers of the past century. Although Maududi does criticise the prohibition of KHurooj (rebelling against the muslim ruler) as a concensus among muslim scholars, he never actively encouraged violent revolution. One can say that he along with Al Banna did lay the foundations for what would later come.

Now this ideology propounded by Al Banna and Maududi (Ikhwanal muslimeen and jamate islami) was distinct and seperate from the salafi/wahabi ideas of the Saudis and others, however there were some inter-influences, as is usually the case with islamic movements and sects...Nothing is static, so for a time, especially the 50's,60's, maududi and the ikhwan were highly regarded and influential in saudi arabia, no doubt with the blessing of the americans, who saw these groups as a bulwark against the marching communist legions in muslim countries.

The tipping point came with the Afgan Jihad. A prominent Saudi scholar used to say "We sent our boys, our students to Afghanistan, with love for us in their hearts...They came back and their hearts had only hatred for us".

The pious mujahideen had gotten into contact with the Egyptian radicals (who had been waging an on and off war with the egyptian establishment since the 50's), and ideologies, attitudes, changed rapidly. The influence of people like Al zwahiri upon the likes of Bin Ladin is for all to see, especially since the assasination of the unofficial leader of the jihad, Abdullah Azzaam. If he had not been killed, i doubt AQ would be the organisation it is today, nor would we have seen 9.11.

To cut a long story short, those crazies from Egypt infected all they met with their vile ideology, taken from admirers and students of thew orks of sayyid qutb.

The saudi scholars, like scholars from other parts of the muslim world, were taken aback, their status was eroded, and they were declared as stooges of the rulers and the west by these radical takfiris.

Before declaring anyone kafirs, they start with the very scholars that people liek Taliban Swatter so love to vilify.

Some of the first fatwas, speeches against terrorism, suicide bombing, and the radical takfiri ideology has come from Saudi Arabia. The internet is awash with speeches by saudi scholars condemning, and refuting the terrrorists and their 'proofs'.

To think that this extremism is a wahabi problem is to be ignorant of facts.
The Taliban in Afghanistan were a scrictly deobandi movement, while much of the taliban in pakistan also adhere to that school of thought. yet sufi muhammad is not a salafi/wahabi nor a deobandi, but he is also there creating problems. no persons from any sect are immune to this ideology, even those of a sufi bent.

These people are nothing more than criminals, and trying to blame the saudis, or their shoclars for their crimes, is dishonest and betrays ignorance.
 
DS, Agno


In any Analysis, an investigator tries to let the evidence tell the story, the investigator keeps his opinon in check. In the entire thread we have asserted that all insurgencies have a commonality of strategy, and the islamist insurgency is no different -- we predicted what may be the next move, we did not put word in the Saudi Ambassadors mouth, we quoted from a pakistani newspaper (nation).

I understand that you have a particular confessional affiliation, please do not let it bias your position as a Mod. You chose to disregard an entire chain of analysis and fixated only on your bias and then accused forum members of having a bias agaiunst your confessional group. I encourage you to keep your ego away from such a discussion - no one wants to hurt your sentiments, and we all want to follow where the evidence leads, not where ideology leads, isn't that so.

This is not a contest between Wahabi and deobandi or any other, it is a contest between national interests - I sincerely hope you will not have confused where yours are, they are with us.


:pakistan:

Not sure what you are rambling about here, though I suspect its the typical underhanded shots at our supposed 'Islamist' beliefs, more of your pursuit of that imaginary 'closet' you fancy I am in. :rolleyes:

Back to my posts however, my points on the name calling on Qsaark stands - it needs to stop, and there is no reason why the discourse cannot continue with civility.

The same with the 'Wahabbi' issue - call them Saudi extremists or Wahabbi extremists, just don't generalize and lump all Saudis or Wahabbis in there.

On the issue of Taliban funding - I am not contesting the fact that such sources of funding exist (in fact I commented on a whole litany of sources that have been reported upon over the years), rather i contested the extent of the funding due to a paucity of multiple sources validating the claims made by the US.

Such sources may indeed come to light as time goes by, may even exist as we speak and perhaps have not come to my attention, but till they do I maintain my position in my last post.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom