segovius
06-19-2005, 04:47 AM
As Bush yesterday yet again stated that the US invaded Iraq because of 911 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqbushattacks) the question of the relationship with the Saudi Wahabis - the sect that make up almost 100% of Islamic terrorist groups (if you discount the Iraqi insurgents who would not in any case exist if their country had not been invaded) - again is worth considering. Particularly in the light of the recent announcement that (despite links with the notorious A Q Khan) Saudi have been declared exempt (http://smh.com.au/news/World/Saudis-exempt-from-nuclear-inspection/2005/06/17/1118869063778.html?oneclick=true) from nuclear inspections.
So how has this situation come about ? That the one Islamic sect that is synonymous with terrorism, which accounts for the vast majority of terrorist acts (including 911 and all al Qaeda, Zarqawi activities) and which are a heretical Islamic sect representing the views of less than 5% of all Muslims not only is exempt from censure in the WOT, regarded as an ally regardless of whatever they do (much like Israel) and (and this is my point in this thread), are accepted as representative of what Islam actually is ?
This is a situation that has always puzzled me and it seems that the answer is that there is an organised campaign to discredit and neutralize Islam (and has been for a long time) and the Sauds are front-line soldiers in that effort.
This would explain:
a) Their involvement in terrorism
b) How they consistently are never called to account for that involvement whereas other Islamic countries with no involvement are
c) Their status as 'special allies'
So, here's some points from the above link (which I urge anyone interested in these matters to read) which I throw out with brief comments for discussion:
The West and Islam have had a long era of compatibility, but this history has been denied to foster the myth of a "Clash of Civilizations". In order to inflame the sentiments of the West against Islam, our attention has been focused on the specter of fanatical Wahhabism, and more specifically, its most notorious exponent, Osama bin Laden.
It is true that the west and Islam (and Judaism) do have a long harmonious relationship: over 800 years in medieval Spain. What is most surprising is that this is not widely known - where it is there are numerous attempts to deny it.
So why is it not known ? What is the mechanism whereby this knowledge is suppressed ?
the Globalists have had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine and the Afghan Mujahideen. But the history of their duplicity dates farther back still, to the 18th Century, when British Freemasons created the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia itself, to further their imperialistic objectives.
That a British spy by the name of Hempher was responsible for shaping of the extreme tenets of Wahhabism was mentioned in a Turkish work, Mir'at al-Haramain, by Ayyub Sabri Pasha between 1933-1938. British policy in its colonies often involved the creation of deviant sects, in order to Divide and Conquer, as was the case with the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam in India in the nineteenth century.
I do not personally know what the writer intends by the term 'globalists' and I view it with suspicion. However, there is no doubt that the US, UK and Israel all funded terror organisations.
It is well known that the US financed Osama at one point - of course there are 'justifications'. Israel are known to have initially created Hamas but again, the excuse is that the project 'went out of control'. But maybe it stayed in control.
Similarly with the Ahmadiyya and the British - this is widely believed and imo, it is true.
But this Hempher business is the most interesting and discussion-worthy (for those that are interested here is Hempher's first-hand account (http://asmar.perso.ch/wahhabies/htm/spy1.htm) ) :
The document is a first-hand account by Hempher of his mission for his government, which sent him to the Middle East to discover ways to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Among the vices the British were to promote were racism and nationalism, alcohol, gambling, fornication and tempting Muslim women to uncover themselves.
But most important was the strategy to "insert heresies into Muslims' creedal tenets and then criticize Islam for being a religion of terror." To this purpose, Hempher located a particularly corrupt individual by the name of Mohammed Ibn Adbul Wahhab.
To understand the brand of fanaticism that Wahhabism inculcated, it is first necessary to recognize that Islam called upon all Muslims, regardless of their race or nationality, to see themselves as brothers in faith. The killing of another Muslim was strictly forbidden.
So, we have a situation where before the emergence of Wahabism, Muslims would never kill each other under any circumstances. This rule existed for over 1200 years.
Then we have a heretical doctrine (Wahabism) that is created in the very place and time where it would be most beneficial to the west and it introduces the idea that Muslims may kill each other for the first (and only) time.
The link to terrorism is obvious.
So how has this situation come about ? That the one Islamic sect that is synonymous with terrorism, which accounts for the vast majority of terrorist acts (including 911 and all al Qaeda, Zarqawi activities) and which are a heretical Islamic sect representing the views of less than 5% of all Muslims not only is exempt from censure in the WOT, regarded as an ally regardless of whatever they do (much like Israel) and (and this is my point in this thread), are accepted as representative of what Islam actually is ?
This is a situation that has always puzzled me and it seems that the answer is that there is an organised campaign to discredit and neutralize Islam (and has been for a long time) and the Sauds are front-line soldiers in that effort.
This would explain:
a) Their involvement in terrorism
b) How they consistently are never called to account for that involvement whereas other Islamic countries with no involvement are
c) Their status as 'special allies'
So, here's some points from the above link (which I urge anyone interested in these matters to read) which I throw out with brief comments for discussion:
The West and Islam have had a long era of compatibility, but this history has been denied to foster the myth of a "Clash of Civilizations". In order to inflame the sentiments of the West against Islam, our attention has been focused on the specter of fanatical Wahhabism, and more specifically, its most notorious exponent, Osama bin Laden.
It is true that the west and Islam (and Judaism) do have a long harmonious relationship: over 800 years in medieval Spain. What is most surprising is that this is not widely known - where it is there are numerous attempts to deny it.
So why is it not known ? What is the mechanism whereby this knowledge is suppressed ?
the Globalists have had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine and the Afghan Mujahideen. But the history of their duplicity dates farther back still, to the 18th Century, when British Freemasons created the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia itself, to further their imperialistic objectives.
That a British spy by the name of Hempher was responsible for shaping of the extreme tenets of Wahhabism was mentioned in a Turkish work, Mir'at al-Haramain, by Ayyub Sabri Pasha between 1933-1938. British policy in its colonies often involved the creation of deviant sects, in order to Divide and Conquer, as was the case with the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam in India in the nineteenth century.
I do not personally know what the writer intends by the term 'globalists' and I view it with suspicion. However, there is no doubt that the US, UK and Israel all funded terror organisations.
It is well known that the US financed Osama at one point - of course there are 'justifications'. Israel are known to have initially created Hamas but again, the excuse is that the project 'went out of control'. But maybe it stayed in control.
Similarly with the Ahmadiyya and the British - this is widely believed and imo, it is true.
But this Hempher business is the most interesting and discussion-worthy (for those that are interested here is Hempher's first-hand account (http://asmar.perso.ch/wahhabies/htm/spy1.htm) ) :
The document is a first-hand account by Hempher of his mission for his government, which sent him to the Middle East to discover ways to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Among the vices the British were to promote were racism and nationalism, alcohol, gambling, fornication and tempting Muslim women to uncover themselves.
But most important was the strategy to "insert heresies into Muslims' creedal tenets and then criticize Islam for being a religion of terror." To this purpose, Hempher located a particularly corrupt individual by the name of Mohammed Ibn Adbul Wahhab.
To understand the brand of fanaticism that Wahhabism inculcated, it is first necessary to recognize that Islam called upon all Muslims, regardless of their race or nationality, to see themselves as brothers in faith. The killing of another Muslim was strictly forbidden.
So, we have a situation where before the emergence of Wahabism, Muslims would never kill each other under any circumstances. This rule existed for over 1200 years.
Then we have a heretical doctrine (Wahabism) that is created in the very place and time where it would be most beneficial to the west and it introduces the idea that Muslims may kill each other for the first (and only) time.
The link to terrorism is obvious.