Wednesday, January 30, 2008
THE TRUTH ABOUT SAUDI ARABIA +
"This world is an unsafe place for Americans--and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people."
". . .our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory--not just stalemate"
--David Frum and Richard Perle
[Note: I know the following contains repetitious material as well as dead links--to the Google-banned-and-now-unreachable original Islamic Danger* posts. I shall put all in order as soon as I can. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Leslie White]
*This blog is in violation of Blogger's Terms of Service and is currently visible to authors only.
Sick of the "Sowdis?"
So are we! Sick of Saudi "students*," Sowdi plane hijackers, Sowdi diplomats, Sowdi-purchased American influential people, Sowdi "princeling" refusing to shake the hand of a Jew, Sowdi, Sowdi, Sowdi, dinned into our ears by the --our--government. We know about the prez--his connex with the Sows, we know about State--and whom the Sows have purchased in there, we know, but, so far, we DO nothing about this*. We know about the madrassas (schools teaching Islam as written in the koran), we know about the mosques the Sows are proliferating in our land. But we do nothing. Time to roll 'em back! We doan need no stinkin' Sowdis!
Oh, their oil? Oh, did I forget about that? No! Sure as shootin' Ah didn'. Lookee here: Pissed off by the price of gas?--gasoline, petrol, gasolina? Click on that. New stuff there! Very interesting. Muy interesante! Go there, read it.
For a history of how Saudi arabia was given the oil by the idiotic West, see Pissed off by the price of gasoline? The History of Saudi Oil
and then, there's
Surprise, Surprise: Yet More Evidence that the Majority of Foreign Fighters in Iraq Come from Saudi Arabia.
And how 'bout this?
`Our Eternal Friends' The Saudis Release 1500 Jihadi Terrorists
and also from
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/our-eternal-friends-saudis-release-1500.html there's this:
Of course then there are the "emirates" (UAE). Are they any better than the Sowdis? they are buying their way into our economy (Citibank), and they are Islamic. Draw your own conclusions.
and, come to think of it . . .
. . . Is Islam a Parasite? Click here to find out
*+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 27 Nov.'07:"US Team Told About Saudi Students'
Harassment", Raid Qusti
QUOTE:" 'harassed, mistreated or faced discrimination at airports or from US
Security Officers' "
EXCERPTS - RIYADH, 27 November 2007 - Officials from Saudi Arabia's governmental Human Rights Commission (HRC) as well the private human rights body, the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR), brought to the attention of a visiting US congressional delegation yesterday issues of harassment of Saudi students studying in the United States.....
. . many Saudi students were being harassed, mistreated or faced discrimination at airports or from US securityofficers," ... .
Under the King Abdullah Scholarship Program, 11,000 Saudi students are currently studying at American universities...(IMRA: 5,000 scholarshps made available Sept.2006.)
Al-Harithi told Arab News that the shortness of the meeting and the severaltopics raised from both sides did not allow both parties to elaborate on these issues . . .
Sue Lerner - Associate, IMRA
[COMMENT: 11,000 Saudi "students." The 9-11 "pilots" studied flying]
**But we will DO something about this. this will not go on, never fear. the climate will change, a real sea-change, and it will not benefit the Sowdis.
The Sowdis are slavers (still are, have slaves) floggers, amputators, beheaders--in short, they are inexcusable savages, sand-trekkers that feel superior because they have been gifted the oil that they never discovered, produced or did anything about except receive the profits from. This country of innumerable princelings and a kinglet have bought much of the United States with their unearned oil wealth--including one person very high up in the hierarchy of the government (as high as you can get).
The Sowdis are high up on the list of what can be called the "shit countries," of which Sudan is one of the leading turds. These countries--that deserve to be flushed--are what control the UN--the "United Nations." Were it not for the Security Council, where there are a couple of civilized countries that can keep the shit from overflowing the world, we would all be drowning in it by now. Come to think of it, most of the shit countries are Islamic. Those that are not, have Islamic components stinking up the mess. Iran--the former Persia--has not always been a shit country. It once was civilized. Sowdi never was--civilized, that is.
Question: how is it that we accept the Islamic practice of "lashing," especially of women, as something normal in these shit countries? Why are we not appalled, outraged to the point of giving a good tongue-lashing to the shit-countries' governments? Are we becoming inured to whipping, amputation, public hanging of children, beheadings--all the shariah-instigated brutalities employed by the shits?
HOW DID THIS ANACHRONISM KNOWN AS "SAUDI ARABIA" GET ITS START?
WHEN AND HOW DID ARABIA BECOME "SAUDI ARABIA?"
(More familiarly known to us as "Sowdi")
Read all about that at http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/11/pissed-off-by-price-of-gas-gasoline.html (look for it at the tail end of that post)
WINSTON CHURCHILL ON SAUDI ARABIA
At that time [when Ibn Saud was forming Saudi Arabia], Churchill was secretary for the British colonies, and he had been involved in the creation of Iraq (in 1921), Jordan (Transjordan) and Palestine. The intention, he told the Commons, was "to set up an Arab government, and to make it take the responsibility, with our aid and our guidance and with an effective measure of our support, until they are strong enough to stand alone ... (and) to reduce our commitments and to extricate ourselves from our burdens while at the same time honorably discharging our obligations and building up strong and effective Arab government which will always be the friend of Britain.
[NOTE: If you click on the "that time" link above, you will see why Bush is acting as he does in Iraq and why it didn't work too well for Churchill--nor will the end result be what Bush is expecting. The reason is that "Arab nationalism" (Islam really) will always get in the way of having an Arab nation as an "Islamic friend." lw]
[Now we get to the part pertinent to Saudi Arabia]
What is less well known is that he also said on that day: "A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe's] religious wars.
The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.
It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
The Bin Saud to whom Churchill refers here is King Abdul Aziz bin Saud (c. 1880 - 1953), who would go on officially to establish Saudi Arabia in 1932. In 1926, this king's followers had control of Mecca. Traditionally a caravan procession (mahmal) would arrive annually at Mecca with embroidered curtains from Egypt at the time of the Hajj pilgrimage. The curtains would be placed around the Ka'aba and then returned to Egypt. The Wahhabists slaughtered 25 of the Mahmal caravan members at Mina because they played trumpets. Music was forbidden to the Wahhabists, and the tradition of mahmal was abandoned. The incident soured relations between Egypt and the emerging nation of Saudi Arabia.
Winston Churchill was fully aware of the potential for fanaticism and warfare, inherent within Islam since the time of the founder and his successors. He did not choose to dilute his words. His experiments at nation building in the Middle East may not have been as successful as he would have wished. He knew that war had attended Islam since its origins, and a century ago fanatics were exploiting this. Today, the world is still threatened by Islamic terrorism and the war of jihad is still being fought, even in the mountains and valleys of Malakand. Our leaders today, unlike Winston Churchill, are too conciliatory to acknowledge publicly the true nature of the beast that threatens us.
[Following is New Material added to this post at this venue on January 2, 2008. lw]
Fitzgerald: Saudi Arabia ridimensionato
"Saudi Arabia needs to be 'ridimensionato' -- that is to say, cut down to size." - Hugh Fitzgerald
Why has the American government not read Saudi Arabia the riot act? Why haven't the hate-filled pamphlets collected at mosques around the country that were built and are now maintained by Saudi money brought together by Rice or Bush and put out on a table at the White House? And then the Arab ambassadors could all be invited over to see this "Special Exhibit," an exhibit to which representatives of all the major networks and the major newspapers here and abroad will be invited and urged to cover?
And then why does Bush or someone else not have a little private meeting with the enraged Saudi Ambassador, to tell him that there is much more in that sort of "Special Exhibit" -- which could of course tour the country -- if he doesn't stop funding the mosques and madrasas in this country, and stop allowing Saudi money to pay for Muslim missionaries in the prisons, to prey on the psychically as well as economically marginal.
If the American government had a mind to do it, it could bring the Saudi government around in no time.
But it doesn't, because so many former government officials and those who listen to them are directly or indirectly on the Saudi or other Muslim dole. Who pays Eugene Bird, and pays for the ads of the "Council for the National Interest" that is virtually identical in its views to the Saudi government? Who pays for "consultancy" by Raymond Close, or James Akins? Who pays for that magazine about the Middle East, full of Arab propaganda, that another ex-diplomat, Andrew Kilgore, runs? Who pays or has paid fees to Brent Scowcroft? To George McGovern? What Presidential libraries have been battening on Saudi and other Arab money? Who has received those million-dollar lecture fees in Kuwait, or from that Arab-funded lectureship at the Fletcher School (hint: Bush, Clinton)? Who has been getting what?
Ask yourself why since 1973 there has been not a move toward decreasing, through the simple device of taxes, demand for oil and gasoline? Why for thirty years did American energy policy consist of trusting "our staunch ally Saudi Arabia" to keep prices low, when it never happened, and never could have happened? Why was no one aware until the last year or two of what, inevitably, OPEC oil revenues would fund? Why was Prince Bandar the only foreigner allowed in on the plans for invading Iraq? Why today do we worry about what the Sunni Arabs want, and believe that we have a duty to remain in Iraq to protect those Sunnis (i.e., keep the "catastrophe of civil war" from happening)?
And that is just the beginning of the list of questions that need to be asked.
Meanwhile, as long as the Saudi "royal" family (self-anointed monarchs since they defeated the Jabal Shammar in 1920, or soon thereafter) exists, and appropriates most of the nation's wealth, there will be those who will as Muslims find their resentment and outraged channeled into Islam as the total explanation of everything. And terrorism will continue in Saudi Arabia until the end of time. Let it. The only business the Infidel world should have with Saudi Arabia is to attempt to have as little business with Saudi Arabia.
For the moment great sums of money flow in, and they will continue to flow in. But this does not mean that every effort cannot be made to diminish that flow of money (instead of aiming at a ludicrously irrelevant "energy independence" for the United States, which is both unachievable and would have no effect on Saudi Arabia or other Muslim oil states, for oil not sold to America will simply be sold to others, unless collective demand goes down).
Saudi Arabia needs to be "ridimensionato" -- that is to say, cut down to size. "Money can buy everything - except civilization." It is a barbarous place; its government is barbarous, its economy barbarous, the mental state of its inhabitants barbarous. A very few, who have spent a long time in the West, can appear to have acquired the habits of thought of Western man. And a very few of those may actually manage to do so. But no one should be fooled by the oleaginous new ambassador, Al-Jubeir.
Posted by Hugh at January 6, 2007 01:03 PM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us
"This world is an unsafe place for Americans--and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people."
"how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory--not just stalemate"
ALSO DON'T MISS ISLAM IS A PARASITE
which is why
Islam delenda est
For the original post "Sick of the 'Sowdis'" at the Islamic Danger blog containing a tribute to Sheik Yer 'Mami and an excellent piece by Alanfanculo, (try to) see
You'll find they won't let you into that blog any longer. Wonder whether Saudi pressure had anything to do with that?
The Saudis do not take kindly if the truth is told about them.
And what is that truth? Well, first of all they are raping us via the price of oil, and keeping production at a level that will increase what we pay at the pump.
On top of that we are providing them with aid? That's like after being raped and going to bed willingly and repeatedly with your rapist between rapes.
Hey, but it's okay. Our George-Double-U-in-chief declared, “I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort.”
We all know what that Certification is worth.
As to the question, "The Saudis: Which Side Are They On?" We all know the answer to that one. The Saudis are on Allah's side, and what Allah wants, Allah gets. What does Allah want? That's an easy one: Allah wants the whole world to submit to Islam. And Allah appears to be having great successes. Can't you see him smiling at the appropriate phase of the month?
Stuart Levey knows that the Saudis are bankrolling the worldwide jihad. But knowing
that doesn't mean anything will and can be done about that. You see Stuart Levey is only the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which means he is part of the Administration--he works for the Secretary of the Treasury and the boss of all of them is that same George-Double-U-in-chief who "certified" that the Saudis are Kosher--or more appropriately, halal.
Now it's not only that the Saudis have control of our economy via oil prices, they also are deeply embedded via investments (with money gained from the gauging us at the pump) in our corporations.
These include our media. Now, as far as Moslems are concerned, these channels for our news and opinions can be compared to ladies of easy virtue who are eager to go with a favorite customer--and the Moslem Arabs are favorities as far as the left-leaning mainstream media are concerned.
But the Saudis, who we must rememeber are always on the side of Allah and not on that of the United States, are much more pervasive here in the United States than having their paws in our corporations. (One would hope that they are using only the right paw in that endeavor.) They also have heavily endowed our universities with chairs and Islamic centers, are exerting control over what goes into our school textebooks and curricula, and are spreading d'awa (proselytizing propaganda) into all levels of our society with the desired results of making Islamic converts amongst our population. As Islam is an ideology foreign to our system of government and at odds with our Constitution, that makes the Saudis not on our side.
More than all the hate literature emanating from the saudi-funded mosques, the damage to us is the attack on our freedom of speech by these self-same "certified" Saudis. This is an insidious process via coercion and extortion, putting pressure on organs in which the Saudis (and we must not forget their fellow travellers in the UAE) hold an interest to censor free speeech--unfavorable to Islam--in the private (non-governmental--so far) bodies that they can control.
Do not underestimate the enormity of what that can do in keeping our population informed of Islamic intentions in our country.
What can we do about this? Precious little, at this time, I am afraid. The Islamic forces--financed by the Saudis and greased by Saudi influence have infiltrated our Department of Defense, Administration, State Department and its Ambassadorial and Consular corps, as well as the FBI and what is invisible to us, our Intelligence agencies.
As to the Saudis claim that "Saudi officials announced . . . that they had arrested 56 members of Al-Qaeda, who were at an “advanced stage” of planning jihad terror attacks within the Kingdom," I would not put too much weight on that as far as the Saudis being on our side in our war with the forces of jihad. These could well be not high-level al qaeda operatives that posed a danger to U.S. territory and interests. They could be figuratively likened to a bone being tossed at a dog to keep it from sniffing around.
"That is why I have always been against such terms as Islamo-Facsism, Islamic extremists and so on. Keep it simple: MOSLEMS. It is easy to stereotype them: beards, clothes, ethnicity, mosques."
Of course that is what is needed in a war: an enemy you can portray simply in caricatures. This was done in World War II--you might have seen the way our Japanese enemy was drawn by political cartoonists.
What is commonly bandied about, however, is the sentiment that "we are not against Moslems, only against Islam." It is something that was forced upon us by political correctness and is held as the proper course to combat our "War on Terror."
Islam is an ideology, a succession of thoughts that sprang from a mind (whose health is still in question) that are called ideas.
Ideas do not float around in the ether. They are carried in the minds of men (and women--msulimahs) and flow from there into spoken or written (and typed) words.
What men (and muslimahs) have the ideas that form Islam on their minds? Why MOSLEMS of course! What a revelation!
But is it safe? Is it safe to say that we are fighting Moslems? Can we say that the men we kill in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in secret crevices all over the world, are Moslems? Isn't better to call them "jihadists," so that the "moderate" Moslem who is biding his time until the violent Moslems and the subversive Moslems in our system have taken over so that he can come out and declare that Islam reigns supreme does not feel verbally assaulted?
No, I do not believe that it is safe--yet. The time will come. but right now, if you say we are warring against Moslems, you will be a very unpopular person. You will be hit with that there are "several billion" Moslems all over the world, and do you want to fight all of them? What odds will you be taking on?
Billions of Moslems or whatever they claim, we--non-Moslems--still outnumber them, so when it's a numbers game, we are ahead. Technologically, as long as we keep them from sticking their right paws into our classified data, there is no contest. (I hope that they have the sense and common decency to keep their left ones safely out of our business. We do find them offensive.)
So what is there to be afraid of? Our government, our corporations, our every channel to speak our piece. It is not "political correctness," it is fear--fear of being shut up, censored, kicked off websites, and if we speak up in a public forum of being physically assaulted and injured or killed that keep us from telling the truth.
And it is not only our fear, but the fear of those who own and control the venues we want to speak our piece on that keeps us from "calling it what it is."
Also, if we call "a spade a spade," (or Islamic fundamentalism MOSLEMS) will we be protected by the law? Not likely as if you tell the truth you will be accused of "hate speech," and incitement against a "religion."
Hence speak up at your own risk. There is no one to protect you. No lifeguards on the beach. And there are plenty of riptides.
Islam and Muslim, is there a difference?
Also, for how to solve the world's problem with Islam, see http://howtostoptheislamicjihad.blogspot.com/2008/09/do-you-possibly-believe-that-it-is-only.html
ISLAM IS A PARASITE
[submitted as a comment on our post " ISLAM AND THE BLACK RACE BLACK AFRICANS . . ...]
Muslims seem to have an arrogant sense of entitlement, that the kuffars owe them a living.
We see this with the Mullahs who come uninvited into Britain to draw the dole, whose multiple wives and vast families are housed at public expense while all the time they are spewing venomous hatred at their benefactors. They are like loathsome parasitic worms excreting toxins into the body of their host.
Litigation jihad is another form of parasitism. Muslims sue employers who turn them down for jobs, and even when they are employed they demand special treatment and refuse to carry out certain parts of their work, then sue for discrimination when the employer complains.
But of course they are only following the example of their 'prophet', the worthless parasite Mohammed. Muslims regard Mohammed as the 'Perfect Man' whose example they try to follow in everthing.
Mohammed began his career as a toyboy kept by a rich widow. When the money ran out he took up looting, pillaging, highway robbery, slave-trading and extortion. He tortured people whom he captured in his ambushes to make them reveal the whereabouts of their hidden treasures.
In Islamic countries the Muslims have traditionally tried to avoid work. Until recently large numbers of slaves have been kept. Another source of income for the parasites is 'jizya', where kuffars pay the taxes and the muslims live off the benefits (sound familiar?).
In Malaysia, the "jizya" is disguised. It is called the "Bumiputra" ("Sons of the Soil"). By its terms, those who are Chinese or Hindus (i.e., non-Muslims) must include in all of their economic undertakings, as equal partners, Malaysian Muslims. So, for example, if two Malaysian Chinese were to open, say, an architectural office, they would have to take on as a full partner a Malaysian Muslim, who would receive a share even if he contributed little or nothing to the enterprise.
The Islamic religion is itself a parasite or mind-virus (the 'rabies of religions'). Islam draws on other religions to establish its credibility, yet violates the principles of its host religions. Thus Jesus is regarded as a prophet, but a second-rate one who brought an incomplete and corrupted message from Allah. Mohammed is the final 'seal of the prophets' who brought the correct and complete message in the form of the Koran.
Remember how Jesus effectively forbade stoning ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone") ? Well Jesus, being an imperfect prophet was WRONG. Mohammed set things right when he reintroduced stoning and made it the major spectator sport in places like Iran that it continues to be till today.
The cult parasitizes the natural instincts of its followers by repressing their sexual urges and chanelling them into rage, fury and fanatical aggression.
Islam delenda est
Palaestina arabica delenda est