Saudi insurgents in Iraq

[Oliver]

The "Jones Report" says that about 50% of all insurgents come
from Saudi-Arabia. So I'm wondering why these things doesn't
make the News in the US since we heard a lot of whining about
insurgents from Syria and Iran these days.

Why isn't this an Issue as well? :confused:



The Report of the Independent commission
on the Security Forces of Iraq

- The Role of Iraq's other Neighbours

*snip* Although their numbers are relatively small, foreign fighters
of different nationalities flow into Iraq mainly through networks in
Syria (See Figure 6) - a problem that the Syrian government has
not taken effective measures to stop. Iraq's relations with Saudi
Arabia have also become increasingly strained, as more than 50
percent of all foreign fighters - and especially would-be suicide
bombers - appear to be coming from Saudi Arabia.

Source: [PDF] jones report csis 9 6 07 (http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf)

[Undesired Walrus]

That's true. Little known fact, but one of the Al-Ghamdi clan (I.e, the Al-Ghamdi who was a hijacker on 9/11) killed himself and about 18 troops. I am unsure of the year. Interesting.

However, In May 2005, 750 Iraqis died in a series of suicide attacks. 20% were from Algeria. Since the Islamists have been defeated in Algeria, it makes sense for them to move into Iraq.

[Oliver]

That's true. Little known fact, but one of the Al-Ghamdi clan (I.e, the Al-Ghamdi who was a hijacker on 9/11) killed himself and about 18 troops. I am unsure of the year. Interesting.

However, In May 2005, 750 Iraqis died in a series of suicide attacks. 20% were from Algeria. Since the Islamists have been defeated in Algeria, it makes sense for them to move into Iraq.


Personally I think the Media is either playing dumb or is
sweeping this under the carpet deliberately. I just read
another whining about Iranian Insurgents instead the
50% of Saudis. The Saudis aren't even mentioned ...
nowhere in the MSM:

CNN: Petraeus: Iran still fueling war (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/07/petraeus.iran/index.html) :rolleyes:

[Undesired Walrus]

Very true. Ansar al-Sunna are seemingly able to keep recruiting in Saudi Arabia. Whilst I am unsure what the US have done to stop this, it doesn't seem to be very much, and there certainly has not been enough, if any mention from the government of what is going on in a country which has little to no human rights.

[Oliver]

Very true. Ansar al-Sunna are seemingly able to keep recruiting in Saudi Arabia. Whilst I am unsure what the US have done to stop this, it doesn't seem to be very much, and there certainly has not been enough, if any mention from the government of what is going on in a country which has little to no human rights.


And why do you think is this? The only explanation I can imagine
is hypocrisy. And even if I don't know about you, personally the
lies are pissing me off because I thought the West is more frankly
than other countries in the Middle-East.

Turns out that local coverage from Arab/Persian sources seem to
be more truthful concerning those issues than western coverage.

Concerning Ansar al-Sunna: I have to refresh my knowledge and
their current activities since I'm still trying to figure out the whole
mess and their relation to Ansar al-Islam. Do you know more about
that and if those groups are backed by the Saudi Government?

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes I do think it to be hypocrisy.

It is possible however, given I am not an expert on the Saudi regime, that there is some practical reason to not get involved with annoying the Saudi regime, but I do find George Bush holding hands (Which is the highest form of friendship) with the ruler abhorrent. If only for the fact of Bin Laden's utmost hatred for the royal family. It is just very unwise.

I'd say, given what Bush has been saying for the last few years, not carpet bombing the Al-Ghamdi tribe in order to get rid of a big problem smells slightly of hypocrisy. But then again, it would probably be very unwise, and I am sure you would agree.

Saudi Arabia has a big problem, and that is Wahhabism, an intense form of radical Islam which is a somewhat isolationist version of Islamism. It preaches hatred of polytheism and hatred of other religions. The Saudi regime have used many thousands, even millions of US dollars to help spread Wahhabism through schools. Wahhabi's somewhat reject Islamism, but I am sure the 15 of the 19 hijackers were very strongly influenced by it. Wahabbism is the more conservative, hardlined ideology, whilst Islamism is the radical, Che Guevara form.

[Oliver]

Yes I do think it to be hypocrisy.

It is possible however, given I am not an expert on the Saudi regime, that there is some practical reason to not get involved with annoying the Saudi regime, but I do find George Bush holding hands (Which is the highest form of friendship) with the ruler abhorrent. If only for the fact of Bin Laden's utmost hatred for the royal family. It is just very unwise.

I'd say, given what Bush has been saying for the last few years, not carpet bombing the Al-Ghamdi tribe in order to get rid of a big problem smells slightly of hypocrisy. But then again, it would probably be very unwise, and I am sure you would agree.

Saudi Arabia has a big problem, and that is Wahhabism, an intense form of radical Islam which is a somewhat isolationist version of Islamism. It preaches hatred of polytheism and hatred of other religions. The Saudi regime have used many thousands, even millions of US dollars to help spread Wahhabism through schools. Wahhabi's somewhat reject Islamism, but I am sure the 15 of the 19 hijackers were very strongly influenced by it. Wahabbism is the more conservative, hardlined ideology, whilst Islamism is the radical, Che Guevara form.


While I don't see the big threat of Islamism or Wahhabism yet - which might
be a real concern in the future - giving all the lovely military interactions in
the Middle-East coming from western side, did you ever wondered why the
Bush Regime didn't touch the Saudi-Issue in a strong manner?

By that I mean that this would be the first step to make "A war on terror",
especially because the Al-Ghamdi tribe had a major role as well. What did
the US do about them anyway?

And more importantly - why should they care about it since they obviously
have other plans than "War on Terrorism" - even if they label it this way
for the "dumb" listeners to distract from their own purposes.

So to sum it up: Saudi Arabia is a holy cow. And even most Skeptics in here
fail to see that and they prefer to jump on the propaganda train instead.

[KoihimeNakamura]

My response to your post is as follows:

What does this have to do with the price of peas in Beijing? Seriously. As Saudi Arabia is our 'ally', Bush cannot go after their government because it's not state training them. However, there is a good amount of evidence to suggest Iran is selling weapons to insurgants. There is a difference.

[Oliver]

My response to your post is as follows:

What does this have to do with the price of peas in Beijing? Seriously. As Saudi Arabia is our 'ally', Bush cannot go after their government because it's not state training them. However, there is a good amount of evidence to suggest Iran is selling weapons to insurgants. There is a difference.


The point to me rather is: IF! the Saudi Regime is behind the Saudi insurgents,
would the Bushies do something about it since they didn't even care about
the 9/11-Saudi-connection? They blackened those things out of the 9/11
commission report - as you probably know.

They probably would sweep a Saudi-Gov-Connection under the carpet as well,
wouldn't they? And if not ... Why not?

[Thunder]

Oliver- dont be naive. The Bush administration wants to kill any news story that implicates Saudi Arabia. This is why we dont hear about the Saudi insurgents.

[Oliver]

Oliver- dont be naive. The Bush administration wants to kill any news story that implicates Saudi Arabia. This is why we dont hear about the Saudi insurgents.


That is the most plausible explanation for me. The question is - why
is a "Free Media" playing this game?

This whole thing stinks - and I don't get people who claim that everything
is fine and "we're the good ones" ... I call BlödSinn (http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=Bl%F6dSinn&relink=on)!

[Undesired Walrus]

While I don't see the big threat of Islamism or Wahhabism yet - which might
be a real concern in the future -

The threat of Islamism and Wahhabism is not only focused on the West. It is focused on the East. Places like Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have suffered terribly from Islamism, killing thousands. Anwar Sadat, a visionary for the Middle East, who made peace with Israel was slaughtered by the Muslim Brotherhood, the men carrying placards saying 'Khalifah or death'. Because Wahhabis see any images of other Gods unholy, they have destroyed all the statues of Buddha under the Taliban, and destroy and pillage all memorials to Mohammed all over Saudi Arabia. They destroyed the tombs of the son of Imam Ali, and in Medina destroyed more tombs. They teach utmost hatred for Jews to their children at the age of 14/15 in their schools. Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia.

It is a massive threat.

giving all the lovely military interactions in
the Middle-East coming from western side,

No, that will be largely irrelevant to the true nature of the threat.

did you ever wondered why the
Bush Regime didn't touch the Saudi-Issue in a strong manner?

I don't know enough about that. I'd guess they were simply heedless to other versions of liberation before 9/11.

By that I mean that this would be the first step to make "A war on terror",
especially because the Al-Ghamdi tribe had a major role as well. What did
the US do about them anyway?

No idea.

So to sum it up: Saudi Arabia is a holy cow. And even most Skeptics in here
fail to see that and they prefer to jump on the propaganda train instead.

Do they?

[KoihimeNakamura]

The point to me rather is: IF! the Saudi Regime is behind the Saudi insurgents,
would the Bushies do something about it since they didn't even care about
the 9/11-Saudi-connection? They blackened those things out of the 9/11
commission report - as you probably know.

They probably would sweep a Saudi-Gov-Connection under the carpet as well,
wouldn't they? And if not ... Why not?

Yes, and we don't know they are (for one)
Two: I love how you jsut presume they would.

[Oliver]

Yes, and we don't know they are (for one)
Two: I love how you jsut presume they would.


Pffft. If 50% of the insurgents would be coming from Iran, that
surely would be the headlines all over the US. But nobody cares
about the in the report estimated 50% coming from Saudi-Arabia.

Why is that in your opinion? - The Saudis are a holy cow, aren't they?

[KoihimeNakamura]

... because they aren't being trained by the Saudi government?

[Undesired Walrus]

Pffft. If 50% of the insurgents would be coming from Iran, that
surely would be the headlines all over the US.

Unlikely. Iran is Shia.

[Pardalis]

Did you have a look at page 33 (figure6) of the pdf?

[Oliver]

... because they aren't being trained by the Saudi government?


How do you know that?
And how do you know that other insurgent-groups are state-sponsored?

Because your WMD-Lie-Government told you so? Yeah, good luck with
that .... I prefer evidence over claims coming from the WH.

[Undesired Walrus]

Anyway, please respond to post 12 Oliver.

[Pardalis]

The OP's pdf gives a link to a more specific study on foreign fighters here:

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/051117_iraqforeignvol.pdf.

Hopefully it will give more detail.

[Oliver]

The threat of Islamism and Wahhabism is not only focused on the West. It is focused on the East. Places like Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have suffered terribly from Islamism, killing thousands. Anwar Sadat, a visionary for the Middle East, who made peace with Israel was slaughtered by the Muslim Brotherhood, the men carrying placards saying 'Khalifah or death'. Because Wahhabis see any images of other Gods unholy, they have destroyed all the statues of Buddha under the Taliban, and destroy and pillage all memorials to Mohammed all over Saudi Arabia. They destroyed the tombs of the son of Imam Ali, and in Medina destroyed more tombs. They teach utmost hatred for Jews to their children at the age of 14/15 in their schools. Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia.

It is a massive threat.

No, that will be largely irrelevant to the true nature of the threat.

I don't know enough about that. I'd guess they were simply heedless to other versions of liberation before 9/11.

No idea.

Do they?


You just stated that the threat is mainly towards the current Muslim
and Non-Theocratic regimes.

Do you accept that this is the result of a western policy which rather
divides cultures than showing up a reasonable leadership? Do you
see that we're on collision-course rather than using diplomatics and
honorable standards?

After all - it's the collision course that worries me - not all the other
BS we heard so far...

[Oliver]

The OP's pdf gives a link to a more specific study on foreign fighters here:

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/051117_iraqforeignvol.pdf.

Hopefully it will give more detail.



And? Where are the Iranians in those figures? Looks to me as if
the hype about Iran's involvement isn't worth a penny. And I doubt
that the Saudi-Issue will be an Issue in the MSMedia at all thanks
to the lined patriotic war-drumming right now.

But let me ask: What does the Canadian media report about all
of this? In line with the US-MSM as well?

[Pardalis]

Pages 4 through 7

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...foreignvol.pdf (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/051117_iraqforeignvol.pdf).

It doesn't seem to indicate that Saudi Arabia, as a state, is funneling insurgents to Iraq. It rather points the finger at radical Saudi clerics who are inciting their believers to fight in Iraq by issuing fatwas, and these fighters are going to Iraq with their own money.

That study (on which the OP's claim is based on) also seems to show that Saudi Arabia is actively trying to stop this from happening, including spending 1.2 billion to secure its borders (page 7).

[Oliver]

Pages 4 through 7

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...foreignvol.pdf (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/051117_iraqforeignvol.pdf).

It doesn't seem to indicate that Saudi Arabia, as a state, is funneling insurgents to Iraq. It rather points the finger at radical Saudi clerics who are inciting their believers to fight in Iraq by issuing fatwas, and these fighters are going to Iraq with their own money.

That study (on which the OP's claim is based on) also seems to show that Saudi Arabia is actively trying to stop this from happening, including spending 1.2 billion to secure its borders (page 7).



You assume that the SAUDI intelligence would publish anything
that would confirm their SAUDI-involvement??? :confused:

Are you kidding?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article641360.ece
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

fm8IuR2VF3M

[Pardalis]

You assume that the SAUDI intelligence would publish anything
that would confirm their SAUDI-involvement??? :confused:

Are you kidding?


I am not kidding, I am only giving you what the sources you have provided tell us.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle641360.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article641360.ece)BTW, I gave a quick read of that link and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

Do you even read your links?

ETA:http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

That new link you have just edited in has even less to do with what we are talking about.

It's not getting any better for you is it?

[Undesired Walrus]

You just stated that the threat is mainly towards the current Muslim
and Non-Theocratic regimes.

Nope.

Do you accept that this is the result of a western policy which rather
divides cultures than showing up a reasonable leadership?


No. I'd say not upholding the principles of liberal democracy like Guantanamo is a danger, but military intervention, largely irrelevant.

[Oliver]

I am not kidding, I am only giving you what the sources you have provided tell us.


The source you provided is based on Saudi-Intelligence - so it's legitimate
to ask if they are a good source - thanks to their track records. After all,
the Saudi Intelligence obeys to the Saudi Monarchy and their poor records.

Where is you skepticism here, Goury? What are you skeptic about concerning
the Saudis?

[Pardalis]

The source you provided is based on Saudi-Intelligence - so it's legitimate to ask if they are a good source

The problem here is that the claim you posted in the OP, which is from the Jones report, links to that study in its notes.

[Oliver]

Nope.

No. I'd say not upholding the principles of liberal democracy like Guantanamo is a danger, but military intervention, largely irrelevant.


Are you sure? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Al_Sadat

[Oliver]

The problem here is that the claim you posted in the OP, which is from the Jones report, links to that study in its notes.


So? What is your opinion about the claimed 50% of Saudi-Insurgents?

[Pardalis]

So? What is your opinion about the claimed 50% of Saudi-Insurgents?

The 50% Saudi claim in the Jones report is based on three sources:

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...foreignvol.pdf (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/051117_iraqforeignvol.pdf).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0809/p01s05-wome.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Syria

[Undesired Walrus]

Are you sure? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Al_Sadat

What the hell is this supposed to prove? I just mentioned Sadat to you, and he was slaughtered because of people carrying placards saying 'Khalifah or Death'.

And what does the Iranian revolution have to do with Islamists?

[Oliver]

The 50% Saudi claim in the Jones report is based on three sources:

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...foreignvol.pdf (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/051117_iraqforeignvol.pdf).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0809/p01s05-wome.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Syria



So? Why isn't this a broad issue all over the media yet - in your opinion?
Why whining about other insurgents instead - and claiming that those
others are "Terror-Organizations"?

I'm sure you sense the lack of Saudi-Coverage as well, don't you?

[Pardalis]

So? Why isn't this a broad issue all over the media yet - in your opinion? Why whining about other insurgents instead - and claiming that those others are "Terror-Organizations"?

I'm sure you sense the lack of Saudi-Coverage as well, don't you?

Oliver, you can't possibly have read all three links in this amount of time.

This is a very complex issue.

[Oliver]

What the hell is this supposed to prove? I just mentioned Sadat to you, and he was slaughtered because of people carrying placards saying 'Khalifah or Death'.

And what does the Iranian revolution have to do with Islamists?


The Iranian Revolution has to do with freeing themselves from
the Foreign oppressors. This is a main issue - contrary to the
Idea that Foreign Politics play no significant role at all. Of course
it does - and it's a reason for a raising opposition, don't you see
that? :confused:

[Oliver]

Oliver, you can't possibly have read all three links in this amount of time.

This is a very complex issue.



I'm still reading ...
In the meantime: "I'm sure you sense the lack of Saudi-Coverage as well, don't you?"

[Undesired Walrus]

The Iranian Revolution has to do with freeing themselves from
the Foreign oppressors. This is a main issue - contrary to the
Idea that Foreign Politics play no significant role at all. Of course
it does - and it's a reason for a raising opposition, don't you see
that? :confused:

The Iranian revolution was based on Shia ideals, largely divorced from Sunni Islamism.

Regardless, what has Anwar Sadat got to do with 'Western interference'? What do placards saying 'Khalifah or death' mean to you?

What you have to ask yourself, is what 'oppression' means. Pakistans leaders are held in just as much contempt as Israel, and regarded as 'oppressors' by Al Qeada. Do you know why?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The "Jones Report" says that about 50% of all insurgents come
from Saudi-Arabia. So I'm wondering why these things doesn't
make the News in the US since we heard a lot of whining about
insurgents from Syria and Iran these days.

Why isn't this an Issue as well? :confused:

Because America does not plan to attack Saudi Arabia. Iran and Syria have been a target since about 1997.

[Pardalis]

I think the NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Syria) is very telling of what a diplomatic and political mine field Iraq is:

The accounts of American concerns came from interviews with several senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they believed that openly criticizing Saudi Arabia would further alienate the Saudi royal family at a time when the United States is still trying to enlist Saudi support for Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi government, and for other American foreign policy goals in the Middle East, including an Arab-Israeli peace plan.
Of course, the Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years explicitly told senior Bush administration officials of the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there. Last fall, King Abdullah warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulled its troops out of Iraq, American and Arab diplomats said.

[Pardalis]

Why whining about other insurgents instead - and claiming that those others are "Terror-Organizations"?

I think the US's stance about the Iranian Republican Guard being a terrorist organization has alot to do with their ties to Hezbollah.

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4002/type,1/

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think the US's stance about the Iranian Republican Guard being a terrorist organization has alot to do with their ties to Hezbollah.



I find it strange that two nations that were at war for many years would name their elite troops the same.

[Pardalis]

I find it strange that two nations that were at war for many years would name their elite troops the same.

oops, the Iranian Revolutionary guard, sorry for the confusion.

[Oliver]

The Iranian revolution was based on Shia ideals, largely divorced from Sunni Islamism.

Regardless, what has Anwar Sadat got to do with 'Western interference'? What do placards saying 'Khalifah or death' mean to you?

What you have to ask yourself, is what 'oppression' means. Pakistans leaders are held in just as much contempt as Israel, and regarded as 'oppressors' by Al Qeada. Do you know why?


As far I see it, Sadat was seen as enemy because his efforts
were to "pro-western". Now if this has nothing to do with the
POV about the western world, then you fail to see why people
down there distrust the west as a whole - thanks to their
interference in the past.

So my question is: Who trusts or distrusts the west in the
Middle East - and for what reasons? (In your own words)

And I guess this answers your question about Al Qaida's stance,
doesn't it?

But more interestingly: What is the Saudis stance - we don't
hear much about their POV, do we?

[fuelair]

My response to your post is as follows:

What does this have to do with the price of peas in Beijing? Seriously. As Saudi Arabia is our 'ally', Bush cannot go after their government because it's not state training them. However, there is a good amount of evidence to suggest Iran is selling weapons to insurgants. There is a difference.
And the big question is, how could Oliver - who spends an inordinate amount of time on these topics not already know that?!:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:rolleyes: (I assume he does and is trying to reach some point with his infamous guided question format.) (Which will not keep the point from being A)repeticious and B)pointless.)

[Oliver]

And the big question is, how could Oliver - who spends an inordinate amount of time on these topics not already know that?!:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:rolleyes: (I assume he does and is trying to reach some point with his infamous guided question format.) (Which will not keep the point from being A)repeticious and B)pointless.)


The answer is clear to me: Hypocrisy
Your point? :rolleyes:

[fuelair]

The answer is clear to me: Hypocrisy
Your point? :rolleyes:
My point is, you keep making the same point over and over. We know what your opinion is. Mostly we don't care though. Especially those of us who did not vote for the village idiot. Not our fault. Complain to those who voted for it.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::jaw-dropp:rolleyes:

[Oliver]

My point is, you keep making the same point over and over. We know what your opinion is. Mostly we don't care though. Especially those of us who did not vote for the village idiot. Not our fault. Complain to those who voted for it.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::jaw-dropp:rolleyes:


This thread is about collecting data which would explain Saudi-Arabia's
role in the whole mess. But unfortunately, there is not much information
available. So feel free to enlighten us about their role.

And no - this has nothing to do with elections.

[Undesired Walrus]

As far I see it, Sadat was seen as enemy because his efforts
were to "pro-western". Now if this has nothing to do with the
POV about the western world, then you fail to see why people
down there distrust the west as a whole - thanks to their
interference in the past.

The Iranian revolution had to little to nothing to do with western 'interfernce'. It was to do with getting rid of 'corrupt' Western values and introducing an ultra-conservative form of government. Hey, it's a lot like the Victorians.

So my question is: Who trusts or distrusts the west in the
Middle East - and for what reasons? (In your own words)

Ok, well, I presume there are two strands of opinions about the Western world in the Middle East. There are the people who get their houses destroyed, their land invaded and their families killed by the West. They are devestated by this and understandably hold a grudge against the West.

But then there is Al Qeada, then there is the Muslim brotherhood, then there is Hizb Ut-Tahrir UK, all who know the entire world is dar al-kufr, and the property of Allah is being sold down the river by the blasphemy of those who have not surrended to the rule of God, have refused to obey Him, who have built up prison walls around their corrupt and immoral lifestyle. There is only one solution, Islam.

Again, tell me, why was Sadat killed? His killers displayed banners saying 'Khalifah or death'. What does that mean to you?

[Oliver]

The Iranian revolution had to little to nothing to do with western 'interfernce'. It was to do with getting rid of 'corrupt' Western values and introducing an ultra-conservative form of government. Hey, it's a lot like the Victorians.

Ok, well, I presume there are two strands of opinions about the Western world in the Middle East. There are the people who get their houses destroyed, their land invaded and their families killed by the West. They are devestated by this and understandably hold a grudge against the West.

But then there is Al Qeada, then there is the Muslim brotherhood, then there is Hizb Ut-Tahrir UK, all who know the entire world is dar al-kufr, and the property of Allah is being sold down the river by the blasphemy of those who have not surrended to the rule of God, have refused to obey Him, who have built up prison walls around their corrupt and immoral lifestyle. There is only one solution, Islam.

Again, tell me, why was Sadat killed? His killers displayed banners saying 'Khalifah or death'. What does that mean to you?


We're talking into two different directions here - because I'm less
concerned about the inner oppositions than the role of the West
in all of this.

So let me ask: Is the West fueling the hate against the west
or are they settling the POV about them?

And could you sum up the Saudis role and POV?

[Undesired Walrus]

So let me ask: Is the West fueling the hate against the west


In ordinary citizens yes. With Islamism, I do not believe so. You see, they do not really, 'hate' the West as much as they hate how they have 'abandoned' the religion God has given all men, Islam, and the last book he sent down, the Qur'an. The entire world is dar al-kufr.

And could you sum up the Saudis role and POV?

The Saudi government has a Wahhabi form of Islam as the state religion. The hatred they teach of Jews, by quoting somewhat harsh and out of context parts of the Qur'an about 'Jew Trees' to children as young as 14-15. It hates polytheism and has destroyed the tomb of Imam Ali's son. The Saudi Royal Family condemned Bin Laden on 9/11, but not really what he did.

Is this your opinion?

[Pardalis]

And could you sum up the Saudis role and POV?

Did you read the three links I posted? The three sources for the claim in the Jones report?